Vintermann
I'm leaving wikipedia for now, on account of a run in with the charming culture, especially zealous article-deletors.
If you're reading this, I want to ask you a couple of questions.
1. Do you feel that conflicts, politics and drama distract you from contributing to wikipedia? 2. Have you ever left wikipedia for longer periods on account of such?
In my opinion, wikipedia is failing, since the more conflict-loving contributors steadily come to dominate more and more, at the expense of people who would rather just contribute. The "adhocracy" mode of operation does not work for wikipedia, since it isn't a non-rivalrous public good any longer. Cloning it and running away with GFDL-licenced articles isn't much of an option, since the established wikipedia bureucracy (composed of people who like bureucracy...) still control the site with the pipes, the sponsors, the servers, the name recognition.
I'm hoping Knol delivers on its promises. It's a fundamentally better approach, since it appears to allow conflicting views (including conflicting views on what the site "should be") to coexist rather than fighting it out with a monstrous, survival-of-the-most-persistent bureucratic process.
(Did I mention that MediaWiki is awful? I accidentally almost edited something on ClockWorkTroll's page, because he had embedded something in my talk page instead of copying it, and clicking on section edit brought me to that instead)
Beaujolais effect
editThe problem with Beaujolais effect is that it seems to assume too much existing reader knowledge. What's a "visibility rule"? What's a "use clause"? The article doesn't say, or say where to find out. I read the article, and I can kind of put together the meaning, but have to apply some guesswork because I don't have a background in computer language design. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see that you have replaced the affirmation that the Diplo is decidedly left-wing by an affirmation that it is generally considered to be so.
In all trueness, I don't know who considers that the Diplo is not left-wing. Perhaps the only people doing so are far far left activists, to whom anybody not espousing their own brand of communism is guilty of a "right-wing deviation" or is a "social-traitor". :-) But, seriously, the Diplo is left-wing by all reasonable definitions. David.Monniaux 20:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Women Unite has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 01:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I was not the person who proposed the article for deletion. That was NickelShoe. If you remove it, most likely NickelShoe will nominate it for Articles for Deletion. That is the next step.
- Every article on Wikipedia must satisfy the non negotiable policy of WP:V through WP:RS using WP:CITE. All of this means that you must show the encyclopedic importance of the article through verifying the statements in it by referencing third-party sources. In addition, if the group is music-related, it must satisfy WP:BAND. If you have any questions about this feel free to ask me.
- My page being semi-protected just means that non-registered users cannot edit it, so that does not apply to you! Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looking back in the article's history, I guess I was the one who put the tag on in August, 2006. Anyway, what I wrote above still applies. Wikipedia's policy is that "verifiablity" not "truth" is the criteria for referencing. This is because Wikipedia is an encyclodia. Read WP:NOT - what Wikipedia is not. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looking back, this reminds me why I don't like Wikipedia. Can you say "condescending"? The people who become heavy users, or admins, are of a peculiar kind. And with condescension and arrogance, they make sure other kinds don't feel welcome. I will be glad when an alternative comes, because wikipedia is more a like a quilt carpet of petty kings than a democracy. To Mattisse's credit, she didn't remove the article. But if she did, what could I have done? Spent hours and hours trying to reverse the ruling? Yes, that would probably have worked. Not because it's a valid article (although it is), but because the most pigheadedly persistent eventually disgust the others enough that they quit fighting. Not that I would have done that. It would probably take a lot to top a typical wikipedia admin in pigheadedness anyway ... because that's the kind of people who remain. Vintermann (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looking back in the article's history, I guess I was the one who put the tag on in August, 2006. Anyway, what I wrote above still applies. Wikipedia's policy is that "verifiablity" not "truth" is the criteria for referencing. This is because Wikipedia is an encyclodia. Read WP:NOT - what Wikipedia is not. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)