Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Idont Havaname (talk | contribs) at 22:16, 24 September 2005 (Randompage questions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

76. Have you ever had sex with another Wikipedian? Sock puppet
    accounts don't count. (10)
LMFAO. Now THAT'S funny. Thx whomever, now I lost count of my score.
— Freak of Nurture June 28, 2005 06:48 (UTC)

In North American, we pay a flat rate for local phone service. Thus, I can wiki to my heart's content... as long as I don't care about missing phone calls... --Stephen Gilbert

I got three phone lines! My problem isn't people missing phone calls... it's other household members wanting to use the net also... -- User:SJK

SJK: For that price you could get DSL or cable modem service and use a gateway box to let your entire home network access the same connection. --User:Damian Yerrick

We in Australia (such as SJK) don't have DSL - we have the inferior ADSL. And it is extremely expensive and notoriously unreliable. Most people still use dial-up connections as a result. - User:MMGB

Price isn't the only barrier. DSL and cable Internet connections aren't available in all areas. For example, let's say... oh, how about mine? --Stephen Gilbert

I am luck to have a "always on" Wi-Fi connection near my house! FREE INTERNET! WOOT!!! Pacific Coast Highway 22:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) (6:52PM Brooklyn, NY Time)

Shouldn't 'Interpreting your score' be in percents instead of points ? --User:Taw

I had set the points so they totalled 100. But it seems they have been changed again.

Yes, there's a continual inflation drift. Current total is 143 if I'm not mistaken. I guess the situation is hopeless... Even if we counted in percentage, the total would have to be maintained automatically, as people will probably often just forget about updating it. IMO. - FvdP 11:13 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)

I'm sorry, but I have some serious issues with this article - has the methodology for this test been documented elsewhere? Why are there no external references? The point scoring system seems very arbitrary and contrived. I really don't think the Wikipedia should be citing reports of testing systems with such a poorly defined semantic structure. - User:Manning_Bartlett, who scored 59.

  • ... who scored 59 when the max was about 65... damn this test got out of control didn't it! Manning 18:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How many points for inadvertently triggering an edit war and a vandalism report, not to mention inspiring a Wikipedia standards page, all in one's first week on Wikipedia? :-) -- User:Cayzle

Why this emphasis on Recent Changes? My score would be a lot higher if it were replaced by 'your watchlist' everywhere around. -- User:Andre Engels

See also : Wikipediholic

I haven't laughed so hard in years. Ezra Wax, ROTFL

Though I'd also like Recent Changes replaced by My Watchlist everywhere, that would increase my score too high. 43 is already three high for a newbie. -- Paddu

When I'd gone thru the test I hadn't dreamt (Sorry, dreamed) of Wikipedia. Soon after that I dreamt of it for 3 days in succession. -- Paddu

I seem to remember broken grammar on #4 in the bonus questions, which would have been more appropriate. As it is, you could say "he co-created wikipedia with Jimmy Wales" or "he was influential in establishing NPOV," but the question originally referred in a sly way to the CARROTS vandal. Koyaanis Qatsi

You mean the vandal used this kind of broken grammar? And knowing about this means you are more likely to be wikipediholic, or what? - Patrick 13:26 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, the vandal had broken grammar. And knowing it doesn't mean you're more wikipediholic; that's why someone moved it to a separate section so it doesn't influence the score--someone could be a wikipediholic that arrived on scene too late to catch the CARROTS vandal at work. Koyaanis Qatsi
Ah, March 2002, before my time. "Carrots, you can eat them in deserts and jail." - Patrick 14:07 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

So ... err ... is a score of 79 after only a week of using the site considered bad or damning? -- TimmyD 06:57 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Well you've got a fairly bad case of it, I think. It took me three months to reach 58, I can give it up any time, honest.... -- Arwel 23:23 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Argh! I'm now up to 70! Arwel 17:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
That's fine - This is the optimal, most productive range according to the page. Angela 17:40, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Writing the software only gets me 10 points? How about editing articles by typing queries at the SQL server? --LDC

I think it depends on how much time you spend writing the software :) MB 21:23 15 May 2003 (UTC)
I think that gives you 3 points per edit :) MB 21:47 15 May 2003 (UTC)

A 122...Wow, only half a month ago I had 55 :). I guess sysophood kills your brain  :) ilyanep 17:59 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My score seems to be growing at an alarming rate, jeopardising my Wikipediholics in denial status. Just wondering, does anyone else think that if whenever you click "random page", you get a feeling you've seen it before, you should get some points? -- Tim Starling 03:53, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Suggested addition:

  1. After working on Wikipedia, does your internal dialogue come with links for a while?

Number 65 - ROFLMAO!!!

Tualha 07:54, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Oops, caught something fatal it seems. Yet, to strife for an even higher score: Why does this question:

  1. Are you impressed by Wikipedia's growth? (2)

score positive for someone who doesn't have enough insight to understand Wikipedia's exponential nature, but not for those who do? Aliter 01:59, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

number 12 should say:

When you click 'random page' do you, more often than not, find an article you have contributed to? (7)

Noldoaran 19:09, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC) (oops, forgot to timestamp)

Should it? Maybe if you actually wrote it in the first place, rather than just contributed to it after it was written, that makes you more of a wikipediholic. Angela. 23:30, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
True, but even with contributed to nobody is such a bad Wikiholic that s/he actually can say yes - even mav is well below 100,000 edits, let alone 100,000 articles contributed to... Andre Engels 15:40, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, that might depend on the age and size of the Wikipedia in question. Aliter

"After reading the last question, did you give yourself 13 points b/c it is always 4, 6, or 8 AM somewhere? (-10 -- 3 points for cleverness :) "

solar time maybe, but not if you are working with time zones. Omegatron 22:34, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

In Question 81., shouldn't it be 79 instead of 86 ? Or was Q. 81 the last question of the questionnaire once upon a time. Jay 07:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The question in question is : "Did you realize you've just read with an academical interest a list of 86 questions taking notes about your score on one of your system's text editors wasting roughly 300 seconds of your life? (If so, you might want to use the automated version next time... :)"
After poring through the history I found that that question used be at the end of the list once. So I've put it back where it belongs. Anyone adding questions should ensure that their question be inserted before this particular question in question; and the number mentioned be incremented by 1. Jay 07:40, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Heh, question 27 (100 points for a T-Shirt "because you had to make it yourself") seems to be outdated [1] —Mulad 04:28, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

New question:

  1. Do you find yourself signing E-mails or IM messages with "-- ~~~~".

Loved (current) question 67: Do we have an entry for wanker on Wikipedia? Oh yes - that'll save me writing it -- PaulHammond 23:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Self-scoring

Share your scores here and come back in a few months to see how much your Wikipediholism has grown.

  • 92 --Uncle Ed 18:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • 140, now that I'm a sysop..... - UtherSRG 20:50, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • 97. It was 70s last summer. I don't feel that I'm more obsessed, but where did the extra 20 points come from? Insidious WP.... --Menchi 23:47, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • 130. I'll do something about it sometime... LUDRAMAN | T 00:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Eleventy quadratrillion and fourty-five. Is that bad, for someone who's only been wiking for a couple months?.... - 52736941
  • 132 (Grah! I just came back! Score... too... high) --Teria (aka 54098) 22:40, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • 114. My first attempt on the "Wikipediholic Test". --*drew 09:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 75. All good in the Wonderfool house--Wonderfool 14:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 106, and I've only been here a couple months. Muwahaha. Hermione1980 21:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 111. Hedley 22:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 251.14. I don't have a problem. Honestly. I can quit whenever I want to (I'm weak?!) Druminor

Meeting room

I saw a wikipediholic meeting room the other day, but can't find it now. Anybody know the page? Mind you - it might as well be here, I suppose. I need help. 8op --bodnotbod 18:25, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Did you mean any of these: Wikipedia:Confessed Wikipediholics, Wikipedia:Clinic for Wikipediholics or Wikipedia:Wikipediholics in denial? Angela. 21:01, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

New Automated Version PLEASE

I'm too lazy, but can someone make a new automated version that's newer than the one linked to on the page? (the one linked to is from the 22nd of Nov, 2003). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:23, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do that for a while now. At the end of the page is a link to a Perl script that should still work fairly well. The HTML will probably require a little bit of tweaking afterwards, or maybe the questions on the wiki could be slightly more standardized so that the script can read it better. The script itself probably could use some polishing. I'm also too lazy to do that at the moment :) Any volunteers out there??? It shouldn't be too hard. I'll get to it one of these days if no one else does, but hopefully someone else will beat me to it.
Also, does someone else want to host it? Although the pages are still up, I'm no longer at UCSC, so they can theoretically close my account whenever they want. I don't have a static IP address to serve web pages from. -- Merphant 09:56, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I could host it, but I know nothing about Perl. The version I used to host didn't work in Mozilla and was created manually rather than with the script, which is a bit of a waste of time since there must be many people with both Perl abilities and hosting space. Angela. 15:54, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, a new, mostly up-to-date version is up. There might be a few bugs but I think it works ok. -- Merphant 07:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

editing Geocities

In regards to question 60, "Have you ever looked for the Edit this page link on an ordinary Web page?" No. But I sometimes find myself writing Wikipedia markup instead of HTML when editing my Geocities page. 141.217.173.186 22:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Duplication?

I'm too shy to do anything about it myself, but are there supposed to be two more or less identical copies of all 150+ questions on the page there?

No, that's not supposed to be like that :P must have happened somehwere in the last edits where the score table was updated. Anyway, it's fixed now. -- Ferkelparade π 07:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inflation

In the interpretation, points over 225 are considered 'commonly fatal'. My POV is that the limits should be adjusted upwards following the inflation in number of questions, since I have now 234 points (automated version), and I'd say I'm not even close to the lethal dose (yet) :) \Mike(z) 14:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know you use WIkipedia too much if...

You have a Facebook account, and you let your friends use your "wall" as a wiki. --Ixfd64 22:46, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

When deep in your heart and mind you say "Yay!" upon finding out there are Wikipedia T-shirts. *So badly wants to buy one* Mred64 20:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
You write [[ by mistake when you are writing something by hand. (I actually did this the other day) 84.68.127.73 20:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question #143 is broken

Justin (koavf) 06:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


Badges

I'm a little bit of an artist. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to make Badges for Wikipediholic Level (Balanced, Optimal, et cetera). If anyone likes the idea, let me know on my talk page and I'll see what I can do and submit it. Druminor 03:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If there are already badges for these could you let me know, please? Thank you Druminor

!@#$

Damn, is 1,122 on this test bad??? -- SWD316 00:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Template:User:Alex Nisnevich/sig 00:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

High Scorers

What exactly does it mean to be a "High Scorer"?? We have people there with scores ranging from the 80s to well over a thousand. Maybe we should set a limit, say, top 20 scores, or all scores over 200, or something. -- Template:User:Alex Nisnevich/sig 04:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

New Question

Do you wake up and find yourself editing?

or

Do you find yourself editing subconsciously?



Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]
20:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Randompage questions

Shouldn't the "Have you ever gotten the same random page twice in a row? ... Three times in a row?" questions be worth more points now that we now have well over 700,000 articles? --Idont Havaname 22:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipediholism_test&oldid=23944561"