Jump to content

Talk:Wikipedia community: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 424: Line 424:


::::From what I can tell, others believe that the trivia section belongs in the article. Why do you have such strong issues with it? Others even added to the section that I put in. There is no reason that I can see for its removal. Please explain. You seem to be the only person removing it. --[[User:Crohnie|Crohnie]] 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
::::From what I can tell, others believe that the trivia section belongs in the article. Why do you have such strong issues with it? Others even added to the section that I put in. There is no reason that I can see for its removal. Please explain. You seem to be the only person removing it. --[[User:Crohnie|Crohnie]] 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Tagged the trivia section... Please take some time to read [[Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles]]. Please work this into the main article text. I'll check back in a week or so and anything not worked into the article will be deleted or commented out.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:12, 7 May 2007

Template:Multidel

AfD nomination

I must say, if anything came out of my nomination for the pages deletion, it is that the quality of the article has significantly improved! When I first nominated, it was barely a stub and completely unsourced. It is a huge topic, and it hardly did it justice. It still has a long ways to go, but since then, it has gained multiple editors, multiple sources (more than most articles), and has expanded into what can begin to look like an article about the community here. ho could guess that an AfD could be so beneficial? --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

This article is redundant and is already mentioned in the Wikipedia article. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already in other articles such as the Wikipedia article and the community article. The first sentence wraps up the entire article anyways. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertizement

This article reads like an advertizement for Wikipedia. We are not here to have an article to promote ourselves. This is a self-promotional advertizement. A big no-no. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, you yourself started the aritcle (with lots of "please expand" templates), and now you're saying it's an ad? That's peculiar. --Conti|✉ 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am being honest about this. I wrote a promotional ad for the community. It was not my intention. I made a mistake. Sorry. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 19:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, you ever seen the Wikipedia article? Your logic is flawed... - Denny 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not explaned your reasons. Please do not remove tags or proposals for deletion. Gain consensus first. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per policy anyone can dispute a Prod tag or a Speedy delete tag... if you want to see this deleted (as I see you left notes on other talk pages) please file an AfD request based strictly on policy based reasons why it should be gone. be sure to read the previous AfD first, however. It likely will fail to be deleted again and could be seen as disuptive by some editors... - Denny 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as disruptive by saying it could be seen as disruptive by other editors. Also, we are not here to write self-promo ads about the community. It is redundant anyways. Thanks. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

Who is in support of merging and why? Who is against? Please give us your pro/con here. I am against, since I think this article will invariably grow over time and to suppress it now prematurely will do more harm than good. A year ago... I would have supported as a no-brainer redirect. Not today... please let us know your opinions. - Denny 01:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my reasons above for deletion. Having redundancy on Wikipedia does not help improve our mission. Later on, I realized it was essentiallly a reproduction of information already in existing articles. You mentioned a year ago you would of supported a redirect. If you would of supported a redirect and deleted an existing article, then there would be no today for growing an article from a year ago. What is the difference between last year and this year for your differing opinion. If anything you can tweak the community article or the Wikipedia article if needed. Nevertheless, we are not here to write self-promotional ads about ourselves. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your referring to it as an advertisement doesn't make it so. a majority of editors don't consider it so. And the difference between a year ago and now is sourcing. There were no (or unknown) articles about Wikipedia's community a year ago. Thanks to Essjay's actions, there are now, and this will grow in time. Even if only one more is done a month, in a year there will be another 12 sources. Even another 1-2 more will make this an ironclad (if short) article. I would appreciate an answer to this question:
Your advertisement statement--if you stand by this conviction, why don't you nominate Wikipedia for Articles for Deletion? And on what policy are you basing thus the elimination... of both of these articles? Please answer all points. I am willing to reconsider if you answer based on policy... - Denny 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in getting into further debates about this. I made my statements known. Besides, the Wikipedia article can fully cover the community aspects. We do not need an extra article to cover a topic already in other articles. Duplication is unnecessary. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic Wikipedia is not an advertisement, then? If so... why is this one? I asked you before, but you did not answer. We don't delete content for non-policy reasons. What policy is this article violating? - Denny 05:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to better this encyclopedia. Redundancy articles is not within the Wiki mission IMO. Feel free to ask a good administrator who spotted the redundancy. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the above conversation is being quagmired, will previous contributors (beyond Quack) sound off on whether they feel this should be merged? Based on current info I am opposed. - Denny 13:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no independent information here. If someone had enough to make it grow, they could always turn the redirect back into an article. For now, it's too bad. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • object to merger, an independent topic. Wikipedia is encyclopedia, wikipedia community is people, to be respected, not swallowed by 'net monster of 'pedia. `'mikka 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge this article into wikipedia, the article is long enough. Sub articles ought to be spun off, such as History of Wikipedia. Plus this article is notable to stand on its own, and has plenty of references for it. Mathmo Talk 12:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-articles are created if the relevant section in the main article becomes too lengthy. This is not the case here. In the future when the section becomes too long and a sub-article is warranted then by all means create a sub-article. But for now this is not happening. I will probably AFD it as soon as I figure out how to start the AFD process. I suggest, merge whatever you find worth merging. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree it should be merged. This is just one, albeit prominent, example of online communities. It should be part of an article on either Wikipedia or Online communities. Xiner (talk, email) 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Discussion

I noticed in the AFD a lot of people striked out their votes. I did not know the reason for this at that time. I did some searching into the matter. The article survived because of aggressive vote canvassing.Take a look at the date of March 8. Here is an example of the canvassing for votes. This may be grounds to open a deletion review or a re-nomination for the deletion to get a better and more accurate measure of true consensus. Nevertheless, there is overlap in the Wikipedia article and the community article. Since, it is clear of overlapping information, there is no need for an extra article. Redundancy does not better an encyclopedia. Not much worth merging for a subject matter that is covered at the Wikipedia article and in the community article. A small paragraph covers the whole topic. Or just read the first sentence can wrap up the subject. We don't need to repetitiveness in separate articles. It is more than fair to merge any information anyone considers is worth merging. Sub-articles are created if the relevant section in the main article becomes too lengthy. This is not the case here. In this regard, I recommend to AFD the Wikipedia community article. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Update. AFD discussion is over. Article has significantly expanded.:) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing onslaught

Wow, nice finds, Quack. Are you changing your mind? - Denny 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines and resources for contributors

The following is a similiar version of a welcoming template given to new editors known as and called newbies.

Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

I believe this would fit nicely in the body of the article. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 03:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't cross link between article space unfortunately. Good idea at the heart, but... we can't. - Denny 03:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We may want to re-consider and make an exception in this case. It fits perfectly into this article. I want to explain it to the reader how Wiki works. This is it. This is the mother of all instructions. This article is too vague. I want details how all of this functions. At the root of it all are policies and guidelines to lead us to the promised land... Wikipedia... and good standing articles. If not this then what. Please do tell. Think about it. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 04:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing articles with project space. You are confusing Wikipedia's internal operations with its finished product. If you want to create a help page for newcomers, go ahead – but do it in project space, not on this article. (In fact, probably better if you improve an existing help page rather than starting a new one) – Qxz 17:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may. I want this article to have factual details of how the "finished product" is made. Insight is the key. How does the community work together using policies and guidelines to better our encyclopedia -- if you will. (Or I'm really confused.:) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive source line

This was the great collection that QuackGuru had found. It looked not so good having a zillion source on that one sentence so I am pulling them here, for us to use/readd to the article piece by piece... for content:

  1. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/03/wikipedia/index.html
  2. http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html
  3. http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/academics/courses/is247/f05/readings/Viegas_HistoryFlow_CHI04.pdf
  4. http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/4666/127/# http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=899
  5. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/
  6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4534712.stm
  7. http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1667346,00.html
  8. NY Times: A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side
  9. http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129702-c,webservices/article.html
  10. http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=8820422
  11. http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070226/full/070226-6.html

Going to readd below the ref section/in it as additional sources now. - Denny 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

The name "Wikipedia" has inherently a basic three part meaning:
1) An encyclopedia (the actual body of the collaborative creation).
2) A project (the effort and devotion of energy to that encyclopedia).
3) A community (a diverse group of people interested in that project).
  • I'd say leave it out of this article... it's better maybe for the Wikipedia article, but how much background should we give here on Wikipedia itself and what wiki's are? Odds are if they made it to this article, they got that under control, and we don't want to get this article unfocused. - Denny 03:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned's reinsertion of the merge to Wikipedia tag

See Talk:Wikipedia#Wikipedia community

a new section (oh my)

Notable Wikipedians

A lot of Wikipedians have devoted a lot of energy to better this encyclopedia. Details about this subject would be fascinating to read. A section with a small overview of notables within the community would be nice. Of course we need solid sources for this topic. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 19:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is perhaps the worst idea I have ever heard in my two months here. Absolutely not. This takes all the problems that "external links" and "list of notable..." sections have, and multiplies them by about a thousand. How do you define a "notable community member"? All you can be sure of is that (a) no two peoples' definitions will agree, and (b) anyone who's been around for a fair while and considers themselves to have "influence" (see also 'cabal') will insist that they get a mention, resulting in the edit war to end all edit wars. And don't tell me that would be a conflict of interest; you're violating WP:COI just by creating and editing this article, is anyone likely to care?
If a Wikipedia contributor is even marginally "notable", then the severely biased view of this area that people have ensures that they already have their own article (e.g. Essjay controversy, and don't tell me that article's about the controversy and not Essjay, it's got his damn username in the title). This article is idiotic already, and should have been merged on sight (how it's staying in place at all is beyond me, especially given that it's entirely the product of two users). Please do not make it a hundred times worse. Thanks – Qxz 00:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that idea. I'll try again. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 04:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a new section (oh yeah)

Wikipedians in the news

Here is a better idea with a more focused title. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 04:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newbies

A noteworthy mention about "newbies" would fit well in the article.

Something like... New contributors are called newbies and Wikipedia has a policy stating that don't bite the new comers.[citation needed] Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

............ -- Ned Scott 05:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very absurd to mention "newbies" in the article. Newbies is a concept far bigger than us, and you might as well also "note" that Wikipedians use keyboards.. I actually see much less usage of the word on Wikipedia than I do on other internet communities, so I don't even think the information accurate in what it's suggesting. -- Ned Scott 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is fully sourced and is relevant. I never heard of the word newbies until I came to Wikipedia. An article in which insightful information is portrayed is encyclopedic. Moreover, it is even better when is is completely sourced. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you cited someone who said it doesn't make it accurate, nor is it a unique element to Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to "Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006." the term "newbie" originated between 1965 and 1970. It's a general English term for newcomers and novices. There's nothing Wikipedia specific about it. Jay32183 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New editors on Wikipedia are specifically called "newbies." So this is accurate. The word is very unique. I never heard of the word until I came to Wikipedia. This information is about the Wikipedia community. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You completely ignored what I said. The word "newbie" has been used since the late 1960s, and appears in dictionaries. People new to anything are called newbies. Wikipedia using a common English term the way it is used normally does not make that term special. The fact that you had never heard the word is meaningless. Jay32183 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is explaining about the Wikipedia community. That is what this article is about. There are many words found in dictionaires such as volunteer, group, and international which are much more commonly used. By your logic, we should remove all words you feel are common. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"More than 2 people are called a "group" in Wikipedia, and the participants are generally referred to as "volunteers". Usual laws of physics apply to the volunteers." ... In other words, there's no point in stating the obvious. New users are called newbies everywhere. --Conti|✉ 00:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to state information about the Wikipedia community. In other words, stating information about the Wiipedia community is good editing. Further, by your logic, you want the article deleted. Feel free to vote. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) Not a vote. b) I fail to see how my logic demands the deletion of the article. c) Good editing entails a lot more than just stating random but true information about the subject. Read and understand Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." It might've been noteworthy if new users were called "foobars" in Wikipedia. It's definitely not noteworthy when new users are called what new users are called everywhere in Wikipedia. d) I am having a very hard time assuming good faith here. --Conti|✉ 01:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming that new editors all over Wikipedia are called newbies. Editors on Wikipedia are volunteers, a group, etc. This is specific information about editors on Wiki. The sentence is very short, informative, and has two inline citations. I want to expand, improve, and keep the article. Generally speaking, I know others want to delete. They can't delete. So, in turn, they want to remove information or attempt to merge to restrict the development of this article. The votes are for keep and not merge or delete. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you're trying to insert into an article a detailed way of saying "On English Wikipedia, editors use common English when talking to each other." We don't need to say that Wikipedia doesn't have a secret code. Jay32183 03:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted information in a detailed way that is about the Wikipedia community. Move on. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 07:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This "newbies" note isn't appropriate for the article, and it's obvious to everyone but you. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a disingenuous edit summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=120932415&oldid=120932033 "...the source in this case is not accurate. a source alone does not make something true." According to this edit summary, the term newbies is inaccurate. However, according to the discussion here by other editors and the reference it is highly accurate. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accurate, but irrelevant. --Conti|✉ 17:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is accurate and it is about the Wikipedia community. New editors on Wikipedia are called newbies. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ekke, Ekke, Ekke, Ekke, Ptang! --Conti|✉ 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History of an editor who continues to remove references, undo my edits, and make disingenuous edit summaries.
  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6] Cordially, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, as someone whos contributed a lot to this article on a very notable topic, I'd say back burner the newbie thing and focus on getting sources about the other-language communities. - Denny (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for goodness sake. I will put it on the back burner for 72 hours. Another note. I will give it 72 hours to leave the merge tag. If it is not merged or an active discussion with valid reasons are given to merge, I will agressively remove it. Happy now. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New contributors are called newbies[1] and editors, for the most part, remain anonymous.[2] I would like to "expand" one sentence by including, New contributors are called newbies... This is just about five or so - little words about the Wikipdia community. Information about the community is relevant. Some people may believe some information about the community is not relevant. I understand, expanding and improving articles is the Wiki way. I know in my heart others are attempting to merge to "trim" and have the 'net monster of' pedia to dismantle this article before it grows into a good standing article. Wikipedia is about the content and the community is about the people which is to be respected. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, while newcomers are sometimes (and certainly not always) called newbies at Wikipedia, the same can be said of thousands of other sites. Every member-based site I have been on calls newcomers newbies. Calling a new member a newbie is not in any conceivable way exclusive to Wikipedia; it is as common as saying the thing you drive your car on is called a "road." Adding stuff like this does not help this article; instead, it makes it sound as though the Wikipedia community fails to recognize what it has in common with other online communities. Risker 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, editors on Wikipeda are "volunteers." The word volunteer (like newbies) is not exclusive to Wikipedia. So that makes your arguement irrelevant. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quack, you're not getting it. We don't say "people who work on Wikipedia are called volunteers". If you wanted to say "Many newbies come to Wikipedia daily", while being a sloppy way to write, would at least be better than what you are trying to do. It's one thing to use a word in an article, and a totally different thing to assert that it has unique significance with that topic. -- Ned Scott 21:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, you do not get to decide on the time frame for the newbies tidbit or the merge tag, that's not how these things work. -- Ned Scott 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am being a good editor by informing you in advance. 72 hours is more than fair. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's fair in your mind is not what's normally done on Wikipedia, or fair to others. Right now the discussion about the newbies tidbit supports not including it, and merge tags are usually given a week or two for discussion. -- Ned Scott 01:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion for not including the newbies tidbit is a logical fallacy. Kind of reminds me of some of the comments in the AFD discussion. Eh. I am committed to quality work. According to some editors, if a word is not exclusive to Wikipedia we should not include it? You are all an interesting bunch. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already pointed out to you, it's one thing to use a word in an article, and a totally different thing to assert that it has unique significance with that topic. -- Ned Scott 02:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to your logic, everything in an article must be unique or it must be deleted. From this logic we must "trim" the Wikipedia article and the Wikipedia community article and have a big merge party of both articles. I think not. I suggest you read both the AFD discussions and then read it again. Logically fallacious arguements should not merge or delete anything. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, a sentence does not have to be a unique significance to be in an article. Moreover, the sentence does not claim any uniquieness. Incidently, the sentence can be modified to go something like this... New contributors are sometimes called newbies... Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quack, stop trying our patience. These are not Logically fallacious arguements. You are wrong, and I don't know how else to spell it out for you. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read your edit summary. not notable/ unique to Wikipedia, and not necessarily accurate (the source in this case is not accurate. a source alone does not make something true. According to your edit summary, the term newbies is not used to call new editors newbies on Wikipedia and is not accurate. So, what are new editors called? They are called newbies. And thats the truth and it is accurate. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"According to your edit summary, the term newbies is not used to call new editors" Now you're just being absurd, that is not at all what is implied by my edit summary. You just quoted me word for word, and then came to a conclusion that isn't even close to what it actually said. Drop the act, Quack, we know you're not stupid. You can't just play dumb and pretend to not understand what we are talking about. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary is very clear and disingenuous. Now, you are coming to the talk page and changing your story. I suggest you add the info back in or we can work together to re-word it. I am interested in collaborating. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quack, you're attempting to use a dictionary definition. Saying newcomers are called newbies is not the same as saying Wikipedins are volunteers. It is the same as saying that an unpaid contributor is called a volunteer. Discussion about how welcome newcomers are, or how newcomers are treated would be one thing. But the definition of the word "newbie" should be left to the dictionary. Jay32183 15:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newbies Tidbit

Here is a reference which explains about newbies among other things.[7]

Here is a sentence in the Wikipedia community article. > Editors, for the most part, remain anonymous.

I would like to add a tidbit to this sentence above or create a new sentence about "new contributors."

Such as > New contributors, who are referred to as newbies, are welcomed by senior Wikipedians using a welcoming template...

For example > Wikipedia has a policy which states don't bite the newcomers and...

Another example > New contributors who are sometimes called newbies...

I am interested in collaboration on this sentence and I am getting no help from the other editors. Please review the reference and collaborate. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting no help because it shouldn't be done. You are ignoring everything you are being told, and at this point it is just disruptive. Stop suggesting that "New users are sometimes called newbies" be inserted into the article. Anyone can look it up in the dictionary. We assume users coming to English Wikipedia speak English, so we do not define common English, as in terms that are not used only by specialists in the feild. You need to understand that. Jay32183 01:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is the other way around. I am getting no help because you are not here to help. You are here to help your friend. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is interested in collaborating, feel free to contribute to the discussion. Otherwise stop your disruption. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I would be trying to stop you from adding something as stupid and pointless as "newcomers are called newbies" regardless of Ned's opinion. You are wrong and need to stop. What you are attempting is not what Wikipedia is for. I cannot assume good faith at this point. You are a disruptive contributor who wants to add pointless information to feel like you're helping. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Deal with it. Jay32183 02:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to put the "newbies" tidbit on hold for now. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

OK, so the trivia section has a grand total of 1 piece of trivia, and it's not something overly useful. I mean, what (first of all) has it got to do with community? Secondly, doesn't WP get vandalized DAILY anyway? I think the trivia section should be removed...ideas? ~ Giggy! Talk | Contribs About Me | QASMT 05:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — Deckiller 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this. It's fluff cruft to make this article look bigger than it really is, anyways. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been removed by Gurch. ~ Giggy! Talk Contribs About Me To Do List 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Denny Colt, SqueakBox, and I believe the trivia section should remain in the article. We have all reverted the info back in. It is the most notable trivia we have. Don't forget, it is the only trivia we have available for the article. And it is very informative and relevant. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By definition trivia isn't even notable, it's trivial information. This being our only bit of trivia is by no means a reason to keep a non-notable tidbit in the article. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles on Wikipedia have trivia. So that makes your argument irrelevant. This is the only trivia available for readers of this article. We are here to expand articles and not delete entire sections. Well rounded articles are complete. I'm afraid your edits has deleted a notable trivia. Think about it. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell does that make sense to you? There's not one bit of logic in that last message.. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Logic is the key. It make perfect sense to me. The tidbit is logical, well sourced, and notable. What part of that you don't understand? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Finding another article with trivia in no way makes my argument irrelevant. Finding and removing non-notable tidbits is a major effort echoed by things like notability guidelines, trivia guidelines, and the fact that we remove bad trivia all the time. We can find typos in the majority of articles, but we still remove and correct them when we find them.
  2. Again, "only trivia" doesn't make it any more important, as I stated before
  3. We are here to write good articles, which may include expanding or removing content. We don't just keep crap just to "grow" the article.
  4. This doesn't make the article well rounded or complete, because it doesn't add anything of value to the article
  5. Did you really just say "notable trivia"?.............
So yeah, all the reasons you gave pretty much fail. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia

Every year, on or around April Fools' Day, the Wikipedia community prepares itself for the massive vandalism that is expected to take place because of the day's celebrations, which lasts for 48 hours instead of 24 due to its worldwide audience.[3]

  • The trivia note is very well written, informative, and educational. This is a unique type of trivia about the community. It reads as an encyclopedic masterpiece. The key is logic and quality. We are here to write quality work. Therefore, it is logical to include such insightful information. Spare us the rhetoric. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not unique at all, it's April Fools day, everyone braces themselves for jokes and hoaxes. Other websites with user-generated content have the same problem, and Wikipedia deals with this stuff every day. This isn't quality content, it's not important content, it's fluff, filler, cruft. There's nothing insightful about this at all. -- Ned Scott 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Would you care to actually explain yourself rather than just making absurd statements? -- Ned Scott 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. You have reverted a good trivia piece. It remains unexplained. Your reasons do not have weight or logic. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained myself, as has User:G1ggy and User:Deckiller. User:Gurch also agrees with the removal. At this point you are blatantly disrespecting and insulting your fellow Wikipedians. It's one thing to disagree, but to falsely state that no explanation is given, and that our views have no weight, is unacceptable behavior. You've been warned about this kind of behavior before, Quack, and you need to stop. -- Ned Scott 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am discussing the matters at hand on the talk page. The trivia is encyclopedic and belongs in the body of the article. If anyone out there is reading this, please add it back in. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disputed matter now, so no, we do not just add it back in, we finish discussion on it. -- Ned Scott 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
disruptive edit warring
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126220209
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126313643
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=126671230&oldid=126646308
you have been warned
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&diff=next&oldid=126741715
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&curid=3708061&diff=126741715&oldid=126740144

Please stop your continuation of reverts. There is no consensus to remove the trivia section. Please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack.. read WP:3RR. It's not three reverts over a period of days, it's three reverts within 24 hours. -- Ned Scott 00:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comments and more involvement from other Wikipedians

For those of you who have been watching from above: You can go ahead and add the trivia section. I would like to see who will be the first Wikipedian who will step forward and add the greatest trivia of them all about the community. It is like no other, IMHO. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, stop egging people on to add something we're still talking about. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far Quack is the only one who wants to include the trivia that has come to the talk page, and his rationale doesn't hold up. Three of four users who think the trivia should be removed have come to the discussion and given legitimate reasons for the trivia's removal, as well as there being Wikipedia guidelines to avoid trivia sections and non-notable tidbits. As it is right now, we don't put that trivia back in. We don't just bypass discussion and try to force our way in, that's not how things are done. -- Ned Scott 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more edit warring by Ned Scott

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=prev&oldid=126931161

  • This editor seems to want to edit war his way to his version. If you are reading this... and disagree with Ned, please revert and add in the exceptional trivia section. Give it a try. The trivia piece is noteworthy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least four users (including myself), as well as a few guidelines, are supporting not having the trivia in the article. It's misleading to call it "my version". It's disruptive to encourage other users to ignore the active discussion about this and just add it back in. Instead of encouraging the edit war, how about you invite the other editors to discuss with the rest of us? -- Ned Scott 02:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you are, then. It's not in a trivia section. I encourage you to expand on traditions in the community—I would do it myself, but I haven't been around long enough to notice any. Also, there is a {{trivia}} template that is a much better way to deal with trivia sections than just removing them. --Dookama 02:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is why I asked you do discuss this first. This is not a community tradition, it's just a day of high vandal traffic. The tidbit isn't notable, nor is it even specific to the "community". Changing the header title doesn't change that. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While "celebration" (to use the word loosely) of April Fool's Day is hardly exclusive to Wikipedia, I think it's worth a brief mention that, even if the community doesn't vandalize Wikipedia itself, it prepares for the high volume of vandalism which is in itself an annual tradition. (Keep in mind that I'm applying tradition very loosely throughout – I just can't think of a better word right now.) --Dookama 02:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dookama. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
more disruptive edit warring by Ned Scott

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=127019506&oldid=127019374

  • I do not understand. Ned Scott, please stop your continuation of reverts. Please edit/expand the triva/community tradition section rather than "blanking" information about the community. We are here to build an encyclopedia and not nuke complete sections which are fully sourced using attributable, verifiable references. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few things. One, completely unrelated to this dispute, Quack, you do not have to make subheadings for every new message you make. Two, being fully sourced does not make something notable or appropriate in an article. Also, you asking people to ignore the discussion and valid concerns of your fellow Wikipedians is far more disruptive than me removing the trivia. Making a good article does not mean keeping everything just to make it physically larger (in data), it means improving it. You keep pushing for these insignificant tidbits, even though they actually hurt the article instead of helping it. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, we are not a dumbing ground for anything remotely related to a topic.
Just let the discussion go on instead of making a scene and disrupting it time and time again. This is a minor issue and it's absurd that you are making it this hard to have a normal discussion on the matter. -- Ned Scott 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A yearly tradition on the 1st of April

This is a yearly tradition on Wikipedia. Its about the community. Its a part of the history of the Wikipedia community. Regards, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tradition suggests collaborate between the community in regards to the event. In reality it's a mass of individuals acting who are independently acting on the same day every year. This is why it's not notable to the community, because it's not something "the community" does as a community, it's just something that happens that involves people in the community. If a bunch of people in a town put on a coat when it snows, does that make putting on coats a community tradition? No, it's just something you do when it's cold outside, even if it's cold the same time every year. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
more reverts by Ned Scott

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&curid=9902773&diff=127324661&oldid=127177044

Quack, I am doing nothing wrong by reverting the added trivia, and I can only assume at this point that you are noting it here to make me look bad. WP:AN/I is discussing how to deal with you once again. Your attempt to discredit me and mislead others is not only disrespectful to me, but it's uncalled for and unacceptable. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia section belongs in the article and at this point Ned Scott has reverted numerous times the inclusion of the insightful trivia section. There is something wrong with doing multiple reverts against consensus. Hopefully, Ned Scott will stop removing the section and let it be. I invite anyone to overview the above discussion and make an assessment about the notable trivia section. If you agree, please add the trivia section to the body of the article. Thank you very much. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a consensus to include it, and currently the discussion doesn't favor it's inclusion. I'll repeat what I said above, since apparently you missed it: "A tradition suggests collaborate between the community in regards to the event. In reality it's a mass of individuals acting who are independently acting on the same day every year. This is why it's not notable to the community, because it's not something "the community" does as a community, it's just something that happens that involves people in the community. If a bunch of people in a town put on a coat when it snows, does that make putting on coats a community tradition? No, it's just something you do when it's cold outside, even if it's cold the same time every year." -- Ned Scott 04:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for new sections

Well, this article has certainly grown since I first saw it. It has occurred to me that an area that is not currently covered is whether or not people editing from IP addresses are considered part of the community. I am not in a position to research this myself, but perhaps an enterprising editor might consider trying to find out if there are reliable sources for some of these points:

  • What "community" activities are restricted to full account holders as opposed to editors who edit directly from their IP address? (Page creation, participation in !votes, administrator status, etc.)
  • Are IP-based editors considered part of the community?
  • Are there any IP-based editors who have more than X edits (perhaps 1000, perhaps 5000)? (I know the answer is yes to this one, because I have seen one IP editor like this working away here.)

Also, getting away from the IP issue, some reference to the various volunteer non-editing roles that Wikipedians assume - aside from the admin/bureaucrat/ArbComm ones, also some of the "assistance" roles like RC patrol, AMA, the group that greets new members - might be an interesting addition.

I know this might be hard to source, at least without too much self-reference, but it might be worth a try. Risker 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As time permits (I generally have less time in the last weeks of the month due to the books) I'll dig around for sources. Great ideas! - Denny (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The incongruity that ip's are called "anons" whereas they are anything but (on ly an account guarantyees anonymity) might be added, SqueakBox 18:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User RfC related to this article

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Admin interviewed on Swedish Radio

Wikipedia admin Theresa Knotts is interviewed on Swedish National Broadcasting Service. She talks about protecting Wikipedia from vandals and sabotage. She feels proud to be a part of Wikipedia. Interview: Listen and learn --Bondkaka 10:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added trivia section

The reason I added this to the section is that being pretty new at Wikipedia I was shocked at the amount of vandalism done during the few days. There was even an editor who got blocked with the comment "Happy April's Fools Day". Of course this wasn't funny at all but I think new editors should be aware that vandalism picks up more than normal so they can help keep an eye on things. I know it helped me once I realized that April fool's day brought out this horrible behavior.

I also think that the word 'Newbie" should be added in, maybe where it says not to bite the new comers. It is a very common know word for new people and it does help identify those who are new so they don't have to continue to say so. Have a good day! --Crohnie 12:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also added to the trivia section about newbie's. I found an internal article about the term being used and feel it is appropiate to add. --Crohnie 12:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. As more editors review the article, they feel the trivia section belongs in the article. I hope Ned Scott will respect consensus. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 15:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very impressed with your expansion of the trivia section. Your work about new editors is very educational and informative. A big thumbs up. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 16:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru invited me here via email. Not sure what he/she wants me to do or comment on. Please let me know how I can help. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy, add more to the trivia section. I have started and I think it's a good idea. --Crohnie 20:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crohnie, as it's been discussed before, both the newbies trivia and the April fool's day trivia is inappropriate to the article. These are concepts and issues that hold no significance to the "community" as a community. The fact that Wikipedia gets vandalized on April fools day might be something to note about Wikipedia in general, but there is no community wide effort to fight it, nothing organized and nothing more than individuals acting independently. -- Ned Scott 03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Disclaimer: I've been studying all day and as a result I'm pretty braindead, so the following may or may not make sense.) In response to your edit summary, WP:CIV. Also, individuals who share a goal acting independently within a group are still an identifiable subgroup with a discernible goal, whether there's any leadership/organization or not; as such, they form a kind of ad hoc, slightly anarchic community within a community. The key word there is community.--Dookama 04:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Scott, being a newbie I have to say you are not seeing things like I am. My first April fool's had a lot of managers out making repairs and even having fun with the April 1st jokes. So it does change things. Also, being a newbie is also used a lot when we get here. Some are not know immediately but as soon as someone said 'don't bite the newbie" it got immediate attention" so I believe as being new and seeing it from a new way, it does fit in, as is an apparent agreement of a few other editors here. Think about when you were new, and how things went for you. It's hard to get used to, hard to learn and we are treated as newbie's esp. when mistakes are made, and boy I have made my mistakes. Thus this is good information to keep in the article. --Crohnie 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, others believe that the trivia section belongs in the article. Why do you have such strong issues with it? Others even added to the section that I put in. There is no reason that I can see for its removal. Please explain. You seem to be the only person removing it. --Crohnie 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged the trivia section... Please take some time to read Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Please work this into the main article text. I'll check back in a week or so and anything not worked into the article will be deleted or commented out.--Isotope23 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Kleinz, Torsten (February, 2005). "World of Kowledge" (PDF). The Wikipedia Project. Linux Magazine. Retrieved 2007-03-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Schiff, Stacy (July 24, 2006). "Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?". Know It All. The New Yorker. Retrieved 2007-03-25.
  3. ^ Kleeman, Jenny (March 28, 2007). "Wikipedia braces itself for April Fools' Day". The Guardian newspaper. Retrieved 2007-04-01. Spare a thought for Wikipedia editors this Sunday. While most of us are leafing through the newspapers and enjoying a long lunch, they will be stationed in front of their computers, bracing themselves to defend the site against the annual onslaught of April Fools' hoaxes. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) — Jenny Kleeman.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_community&oldid=128983497"