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

[Giggy]

its not as bad as it seems.

Examples?

Also a note to everyone in this thread; "its" is a possessive. "it's" stands for "it is". Please try to get it right.

[Kennedy]

its not as bad as it seems.

Examples?

Also a note to everyone in this thread; "its" is a possessive. "it's" stands for "it is". Please try to get it right.

I know at this point it does not seem like that. There is a lot of drama getting in the way. It will become better though. I'm sure it will. I hope it will.

Its/It's point noted.

[dogbiscuit]

Try this, I learnt it at school:

His, hers, yours and its
Have no apostrophes or other bits.

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

[Bottled_Spider]

Although I must say I am impressed you can read Simple.Wikipedia from all the way up there on your high horses.
People in chocolate teapots shouldn't look gift horses on the hot tin roof...

No no no, K-boy. No. That's two horse-references in as many sentences. You just didn't think this through properly, did you?

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.

Yaah Mule! Yaah! YAAH!!!

[Moulton]

All the world's a stage.

Once you get past the drama, its not as bad as it seems.

The assumption that one can "get past the drama" is a potentially fatal misconception.

It's like going to the circus and thinking, "Once you get past the circus acts, the discussion seminars are OK."

Ask yourself how it comes to be that there is so much disruptive and distracting political dramaturgy on a project that is supposed to be a scholarly enterprise to craft an encyclopedia.

If you study the system architecture of Wikimedia projects, you discover that they are optimally designed to be drama engines (and poorly designed to be scholarly enterprises).

For starters, all the actors are wearing quick-change costumes. They strut on and off the stage as they engage in hilarious antagonistic encounters full of sound and fury (but signifying nothing).

Here, let me illustrate...

"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

See? I'm not making this up. Shakespeare noted it well, centuries ago.

[JoseClutch]

All the world's a stage.

Once you get past the drama, its not as bad as it seems.

The assumption that one can "get past the drama" is a potentially fatal misconception.

It's like going to the circus and thinking, "Once you get past the circus acts, the discussion seminars are OK."

Ask yourself how it comes to be that there is so much disruptive and distracting political dramaturgy on a project that is supposed to be a scholarly enterprise to craft an encyclopedia.

If you study the system architecture of Wikimedia projects, you discover that they are optimally designed to be drama engines (and poorly designed to be scholarly enterprises).

For starters, all the actors are wearing quick-change costumes. They strut on and off the stage as they engage in hilarious antagonistic encounters full of sound and fury (but signifying nothing).

Here, let me illustrate...

"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

See? I'm not making this up. Shakespeare noted it well, centuries ago.

Moultan

If you have ever worked in a university (and I am fairly confident that you have), then you should know they are drama engines of epic proportions. They also have seminars, where occasionally we generate new knowledge, like that electricity and magnetism are connected.

Wikipedia generates GNU knowledge, not new knowledge, but otherwise the principles are the same. The politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.

[Bottled_Spider]

"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow"......

See? I'm not making this up. Shakespeare noted it well, centuries ago.

The politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.

For Simpleton Wikipedia and associations with Shakespeare, you have to look to Richard III.

"An honest tale speeds best, being plainly told", "The world is grown so bad, that wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch", and "So wise so young, they say, do never live long".

Oh, and (of course!) "A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!". That one's especially dedicated to the Kidney guy.

[Milton Roe]

Try this, I learnt it at school:

His, hers, yours and its
Have no apostrophes or other bits.

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

And your left and right first fingers, too. That is, if you don't have an e-cold.

[Eva Destruction]

[blah blah blah I don't agree with you, sewiki is great]

I do look forward to your response, as I am sure you will find more incriminating diffs or links, instead of answering my points. Good luck!

All right then; give honest answers to these questions:

1. What do you see the purpose of sewiki as? Do you agree with its mission statement that "to be useful for children, those learning English, those wanting to know basic information about a topic (not in depth), those who are partially literate in English, and those who have learning disabilities, and serve as a basis for translating articles to other Wikipedias"
2. Do you think it meets these goals? If not, when do you think it will?
3. Name any three articles that in sewiki's own terms of being easier to understand are more informative then their equivalents on en-wiki, or the equivalents on Citizendium where they exist.
4. These three articles were the genuine (non cherry-picked) result of clicking Special:Random on sewiki three times; defend them: British Rail Class 306, 11554 Asios, England. (The last in particular is a fiasco on so many levels I don't know where to start.)
5. You seem to say in your later posts here that the problems stem from a particular group of editors. If that's the case, why are they allowed to continue being disruptive; Lord knows en-wiki has problem editors, but generally people at least try to stop them. Why don't you?
6. Do you think a project specifically aimed at children should be especially thorough in vetting those in positions of responsibility? If no, why not; if yes, do you think your procedures are robust enough?

[dogbiscuit]

England. (The last in particular is a fiasco on so many levels I don't know where to start.)

My favourite line is "English culture - See English literature."

What ever happened to warm beer and cricket?

[carbuncle]

England. (The last in particular is a fiasco on so many levels I don't know where to start.)

My favourite line is "English culture - See English literature."

What ever happened to warm beer and cricket?

But did you see English literature?

The term English literature means literature written in the English language, that is also literature in English by writers that did not come from England.

That should be simple enough for anyone to understand, yes? Why do people pick on SEWP so much?

[Bottled_Spider]

England. (The last in particular is a fiasco on so many levels I don't know where to start.)

What ever happened to warm beer and cricket?

And morris dancing. Let's not forget morris dancing. Oh God. Still; it gives country-music line dancers something to laugh at. Heh!

[JoseClutch]

England. (The last in particular is a fiasco on so many levels I don't know where to start.)

My favourite line is "English culture - See English literature."

What ever happened to warm beer and cricket?

Your talents are being wasted on the internet. In all seriousness, quit your day job.

[Eva Destruction]

I'm particularly taken by "After this [the 1707 Act of Union], the history of England becomes the history of Great Britain and United Kingdom." Manages to offend so many groups on so many levels. (Do you suppose he thinks that "after 1776, the history of Massachusetts becomes the history of the United States"?) Oh, and the fact that the sole reference in what's arguably one of the most important topics on an English-language project is to FIFA.

Oh, and just noticed "James left the country without a fight". I guess the Battle of the Boyne was just a figment of an overactive imagination.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Fri 6th February 2009, 8:39pm

[Kennedy]

[blah blah blah I don't agree with you, sewiki is great]

I do look forward to your response, as I am sure you will find more incriminating diffs or links, instead of answering my points. Good luck!

All right then; give honest answers to these questions:

1. What do you see the purpose of sewiki as? Do you agree with its mission statement that "to be useful for children, those learning English, those wanting to know basic information about a topic (not in depth), those who are partially literate in English, and those who have learning disabilities, and serve as a basis for translating articles to other Wikipedias"
2. Do you think it meets these goals? If not, when do you think it will?
3. Name any three articles that in sewiki's own terms of being easier to understand are more informative then their equivalents on en-wiki, or the equivalents on Citizendium where they exist.
4. These three articles were the genuine (non cherry-picked) result of clicking Special:Random on sewiki three times; defend them: British Rail Class 306, 11554 Asios, England. (The last in particular is a fiasco on so many levels I don't know where to start.)
5. You seem to say in your later posts here that the problems stem from a particular group of editors. If that's the case, why are they allowed to continue being disruptive; Lord knows en-wiki has problem editors, but generally people at least try to stop them. Why don't you?
6. Do you think a project specifically aimed at children should be especially thorough in vetting those in positions of responsibility? If no, why not; if yes, do you think your procedures are robust enough?

1. I agree. I think it is (or should be) a project for children and those who have difficulty speaking English. (Non-Native English speakers etc)
2. No. Who knows? We have a short list of good and very good articles. Once that list gets longer, and there is less copy-paste jobs perhaps.
3. Gothic Architecture (en.wiki version), Scottish Premier League (en.wiki version), Cuban Missile Crisis (en.wiki version)
4. 1. Recently created stub (29 December) 2. Recently created stub (2 January) 3. The England article gives a very rough idea of the country. (although it delves into Medieval history...)
5. I have tried. People have tried. Its just that some editors have a group of friends that can stick up for them. The ones that don't aren't there anymore (Jonas/Tharnton).
6. Not especially. Not more so than en.wiki. My basis for that thought is that it is not solely aimed at kids. Neither is en.wiki. There are adults who would read simple (because they can't read to a high standard). If there was one, I would read a Simple German Wikipedia because my German is not very good, and it would definately help me learn it better.

[Bottled_Spider]

Oh, and just noticed "James left the country without a fight". I guess the Battle of the Boyne was just a figment of an overactive imagination.

He did, actually, leave without a fight (in December '88). In fact his "fleeing" was so hurried the silly bugger got caught after only a few miles, but was allowed to board a ship to France so as to not become a martyr. The Boyne was much later in July '90.

This post has been edited by Bottled_Spider: Fri 6th February 2009, 9:15pm

[Razorflame]

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.

[Sarcasticidealist]

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.

I've mostly stayed out of this, because I don't think it's nice to kick Simple English Wikipedia around. But in response to this post, I think you should be aware that
i. a good portion of the people here have no *desire* to build Wikipedia; rather, they would like to see it cease to exist.
ii. of those of us who do support Wikipedia's continued existence, there are quite a few people here who have done a great deal to build Wikipedia. For example, to my knowledge four of the top twenty writers of featured articles at en-wiki are here. So too are three current members of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, which I understand takes some significant amount of time as well.

That's the thing with ad hominems: not only are they not an intellectually sound debating technique, they can make you look really stupid if the attacks are unfounded.

[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.

I've mostly stayed out of this, because I don't think it's nice to kick Simple English Wikipedia around. But in response to this post, I think you should be aware that
i. a good portion of the people here have no *desire* to build Wikipedia; rather, they would like to see it cease to exist.
ii. of those of us who do support Wikipedia's continued existence, there are quite a few people here who have done a great deal to build Wikipedia. For example, to my knowledge four of the top twenty writers of featured articles at en-wiki are here. So too are three current members of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, which I understand takes some significant amount of time as well.

That's the thing with ad hominems: not only are they not an intellectually sound debating technique, they can make you look really stupid if the attacks are unfounded.

What he said. Assuming those comments were aimed at me, I currently have more than 100,000 Wikipedia edits and my last piece of assessed content was a featured article promoted – er – six days ago. You, on the other hand, have eight times more edits to your own user page than to any article and your proudest contributions are to have written a dozen one-line (literally) stubs.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Fri 6th February 2009, 10:48pm

[Bottled_Spider]

.... then you wouldn't have the time that you do to post posts on this site.

Post posts? Aye aye!

Therefore, the people who actually build Wikipedia are even better than you guys.

Wow. Those guys must be something. Being better than us guys, I mean.

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.

You're not exactly the brightest spark in the firmanent, are you? Rhetorical question.