If he really does crave drama over the dull work of writing an authentic encyclopedia, then banning him will be a win-win for everyone. Wikipedians love the drama of these community ban exercises, and Giano loves to be in the middle of drama of any sort.

Who cares about writing an encyclopedia, anyway? If that's what people want to do, there are better sites where the only work underway is the dull work of crafting an authentic encyclopedia.

Eh, this was meant as a direct reply to horsey, but I havn't figured out how to do that yet.

So there, horsey, you've been told!

Giano is more valuable to the project than his contibutions or openions. He represents someting that is being lost to, well Randy from Boise, who is interested in the internet only and having a voice for its own sake - on whatever website, doesn't matter. All the problems on wiki are caused by thoes people - so caught up in the game and process that they cannot ''think'', they just follow and leave a mire of shit behind.

[later edit by the confused]
Eh, this was meant as a direct reply to horsey, but I havn't figured out how to do that yet.

So there, horsey, you've been told!

And, thing is, neither will ever be banned for the sake of a few sharp words. Ever. In fact the only reason either would be banned is if their account got hacked and went on some sort of spree. But even then, I imagine once they regained it they'd be unblocked and all would be forgiven. There is a point in a Wikipedia career when you become a "wiki-veteran" and you can do as you please, pretty much. Giano and Malleus reached that stage long ago.

Giano is more valuable to the project than his contibutions or openions. He represents someting that is being lost to, well Randy from Boise, who is interested in the internet only and having a voice for its own sake - on whatever website, doesn't matter. All the problems on wiki are caused by thoes people - so caught up in the game and process that they cannot ''think'', they just follow and leave a mire of shit behind.

This might be a stupid question, but I'm just going to ask straight out. These non content rent a view ''people'', why, what are they doing with their lives?

I think a Wikipedia without Giano (or Malleus, or most users actually) just wouldn't be Wikipedia. They're so ingrained into it, it wouldn't be right seeing them banned.

Giano and Malleus would be missed so much more than the likes of TreasuryTag and MickMacNee.

There's always a new wave of colorful characters who come in. And some of them are actually old favorites in new roles.

Wikipedia veteran editors get shoved in the pit all the time. It's just that it's taken so long for Giano.

Now that he's pretty much stopped cranking out content, he's removed his best protection, so he might be gone soon.

Stopped? I beg to differ.

Stopped? I beg to differ.

None of those are important pages or really worth while. Buckingham Palace was the last time he tried to actually write something encyclopedic.

Define "something encyclopedic". Montacute House, Geddes Hyslop, Palazzo Torlonia, Via della Scrofa 117, Rome – all post-return Giano articles. Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it's not important.

I'm actually quite shocked Ottava of all people would make such an absurd comment.

Actually, from what I read, Giano is someone who does try to add a bit of life to articles.

From that point of view, he is a lot better than many writers, but the constraints of house policy mean that the articles tend towards fact lists rather than educational tales.

I did not say that.

I'm afraid that Ottava appears to want the world to be a different place. Picking one article that I know somehting about, Montacute House is exactly the sort of thing I would expect to see in a detailed online encyclopedia. Anything owned by the National Trust is likely to be interesting in some way.

However, reading it, it reminds me of why Wikipedia, with its current restrictions, cannot really succeed. All the restrictions on sourcing and POV suck the life out of any writing. If you visit an NT house, you will often find (aside from the grannies getting enthused about anyone dragging some cute kid around) a curator with a real passion about the place, who will reflect the life and the quirks of the household. A well written article on a place should have humour and passion about its subject, bringing it to life.

As an editor, a Wikipedian is discouraged from putting such things in, and to lift it from other works would be obvious plagiarism, so it is in the nature of the process that an article must be turgid. A good example is Winston_Churchill. If there is an article in Wikipedia that should entrance a reader, it is that, but no, it is a painfully organised list of events where my eyes glaze over.

I think that is a big disappointment in Wikipedia. From the naive writing of 5 years ago, it has not managed to evolve a house style that encourages entertaining writing. I'm sure this was identified long ago, but there are so many other problems... yada yada yada.

It is my considered opinion that Giano:

[*]Reminds me at times of a Mexican masked wrestler

Stopped? I beg to differ.

Pages created by GiacomoReturned: 9
Pages created by Giano: 167
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, yeah... pretty much stopped since he flounced and returned the last time.

Get thee to a buttery...

There is no "Giano problem". There is a "Wikipedia problem". The solution to the "Wikipedia problem" is to get rid of all the people who think there is a "Giano problem".

Oi!




Could it be that someone else has created a stub and Giacomo is expanding it, or that he is overhauling a poor article? Perhaps there are not so many worthy subjects for which to create new articles, so he polishes up those that are there. As Ottava noted, his most well known recent effort was Buckingham Palace - which I rather suspect was installed prior to Giacomo registering his first account. Statistics? Pah!


I rather believe that I have become the most recent "Giano champion" on WP, or at least the one prepared to back my judgement with admin tools. Simple enough reason, that while I am sympathetic toward most of Giacomo's opinions I mainly find in him a person of integrity - such that it allows him to take contrary views over similar matters and yet remain honest. Not only does he get angry when he perceives injustice, but he gets angry at the lack of concern expressed by people he feels should be endeavouring to mitigate such injustice, and gets incandescent when the "culprits" are permitted to rationalise their deeds yet the complainers are quickly sanctioned.

Of course, Wikipedia does not do "justice" - but that is no reason why Giacomo shouldn't attempt to shine a light upon situations where such a quality might be prudent.

I mainly find in him a person of integrity - such that it allows him to take contrary views over similar matters and yet remain honest. Not only does he get angry when he perceives injustice, but he gets angry at the lack of concern expressed by people he feels should be endeavouring to mitigate such injustice, and gets incandescent when the "culprits" are permitted to rationalise their deeds yet the complainers are quickly sanctioned.

Of course, Wikipedia does not do "justice" - but that is no reason why Giacomo shouldn't attempt to shine a light upon situations where such a quality might be prudent.

In a culture suffused with injustice, it is a rare person who can process that injustice with just the right mix of anger and good humor to gently nudge the system in a Bokononic direction.

I'm always willing to be convinced - I'll dust off my mostly inactive Wikipedia account and have a closer look at Giano's contribs.

Just to clarify something. I still content edit quite a bit. However, for reasons best known to myself, I edit in user space and then do one big paste into mainspace and have the user page often with 100s of edits deleted - there is no need for people to see me editing three times trying to write one word. I could never legitimately be an edit-counter-boaster. Also, in the areas I write, there are fewer and fewer pages which have not been already started, so I tend to expand existing pages. I also now spend hours drawing plans - which by necessity have to be drawn offline, but I like doing because I now find text increasingly hard - my content work at Wikipedia has changed in character considerably and will continue to do so, but that does not mean I can't have and express opinions. Until the day they ban me, I will express my opinions.

Giacomo

Giano, you know that I rarely do my edits on Wiki, so I don't bother with edits over what is actually put up. My concern was that you are focusing on tiny pages and abandoning them, which gives you more time to war all over AN/I.

The Tower of London page is in horrible shape. It is also probably one of the most important pages you could be working on.

Why don't you both verify that you aren't at Wikipedia just for drama AND show how great of a writer you are in topics that are extremely important by fixing that page? You worked on Buckingham Palace, so the Tower should be right there besides it, right?

Ottava,

I re-wrote Buckingham Palace from a stub/short page years ago, and I have moved on, I'm not sure I even like the page now; it's certainly not how I would write it today. The Tower of London is before the era I understand; I don't do medieval stuff - I can barely tell perpendicular from pointed. I like English country houses, and recently Montacute and Buscot were both interesting to write, but I have moved on, I want t concentrate more on mainland Europe now, anyway, what's wrong with a small page, if it fills a gap, it's just as important as a big page. Size isn't everything you know.

Giacomo

Nobody cares about either of your self-important writing skills. It is a wiki. The best work either of you ever did is entitled to no more dignity than penis vandalism. Besides, you're both boring.

Oh, I don't know. I bet Ottava has a bigger penis than GlassBeadGame, and Giano probably has quite the sausage, too! (And thank goodness Lar isn't part of this conversation -- rumor has it that...well, you know what rumors are!)

Someone turn on the Cartoon Network to keep NuclearWarfare and the other underage kiddies distracted, and let's see which one of these guys is really packing. The winner gets a contract with Michael Lucas for his next epic, "Men of Wikipedia."

...and, not to put too fine a point on it, possibly even to get people to think his penis is at least marginally smaller than it actually is.

While I agree that nobody (outside of a handful of WP'ers) cares, or should care, about Giano's or Ottava's self-important writing skills, did we ever figure out why Ottava suggests that Giano should work on the Tower of London (T-H-L-K-D) page, which he has apparently never touched before? It's a good enough example of general article deterioration, but it's not like the thing is completely unreadable, and it doesn't seem to contain anything gratuitously obscene, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable, at least in the version I just looked at.

One of the things that makes Wikipedia cult-like is this notion that people always have to keep proving their "value to the community," even though the very concept of "value" in the WP user/participant context differs from person to person, if not from day to day.

Moreover, "drama" (propagated or otherwise) is not always a bad thing. Bear in mind that it would be easy for an outsider to look at Giano's overall history of "community interaction" on WP, and conclude that he's actually being targeted by a relatively small "inner cabal" primarily because of his strong reactions against the activities of online pedophiles and child exploiters - and that the idea that he merely stirs up lots of "drama" may well be a mischaracterization used by those very people to discredit him, and possibly even to get people to think his penis is at least marginally smaller than it actually is.

...did we ever figure out why Ottava suggests that Giano should work on the Tower of London (T-H-L-K-D) page...(?)

Might have more to do with archetypes than architecture.

It is my considered opinion that Giano:

[*]Reminds me at times of a Mexican masked wrestler
[/list]
Damn. I think I veered off again.