Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 2

From Wikinfo

SPOV

What to do if one thinks that an article doesn't conform to SPOV? Is there any template (like w:Template:POV on Wikipedia) for this? Many articles, such as Adolf Hitler, are in fact written from a negative point of view, it seems. Skander 21:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Poor old Hitler, it seems, ruined his reputation... Fred 02:54, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

You may write a SPOV article. SPOV doesn't mean whitewash though. There is good and bad in all of us; there are different proportions of it as well. But yes, you may write an SPOV article. Consider sources other people haven't used, tone down exaggerations, play up the good points, etc. I consider the some acts of the Allies like the firebombing of Dresden, the firebombing of Toyko and the massacre of Katyn forest as horrible as anything the Nazis did. WWII was pretty disgusting all the way around as far as I am concerned and WWII was only a continuation of WWI which Germany did not start. Both of these WW were caused by an anarchist bullet for the express purpose of destroying the Old Order; Anarchists, socialists and evil still triumphed.WHEELER 20:58, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Here is what I have been trying to say. Here is an article about a book about how Pearl Harbor was engineered by FDR to bring about Communist ideology. FDR sacrificed his own people to score a bigger Commie ideology. Please see: FDR, Pearl Harbor and the U.N. by John V. Denson at Lewrockwell.com. Again, I want to point to Dr. Mankow's site, a Jew, who has written some articles on the foreign support given early to the National Socialist Party: Did Bormann Run Hitler for the Illuminati? By Henry Makow Ph.D. June 02, 2007.

Knowing the racial characteristics of the Germans, i.e. their very very logical mindset, knowing that they WILL take things to a logical end, were set up to carry out the destruction of Jews in order to score a more political point; i.e. the destruction and discrediting of European nationalism. The Germans were patsies for globalization and the use to destroy the Old Order. After reading that article by John Denson, I have nothing but thorough disgust for FDR and the whole American and British involvement in WWII. Churchill was a failed politician who thru Jewish money revived his political fortunes and cantipulted him into positions of power. Churchill did not have to declare war on Germany at all but his handlers ensured his compliance for their designs.

WWII was a fight between the International Socialists of Russia, the National Socialists of Germany and Italy and the Fabian Socialists of America and Britain. A pox on all of this. Nothing that America or Britain did was "heroic". NOTHING but scandalous, evil, and sick.WHEELER 14:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

My goodness, awful stuff... Fred 15:01, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

A SPOV is a good thing this way we side "other" sides rather than one sided D.Stalnaker 04:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikinfo:Sympathetic_point_of_view, SPOV and Sympathetic point of view, bypassing critical, slanderous, ironic and new-reporting points of view in favor of direct statement. Hey, if Hitler sucked, why can't we say so? Terryeo 13:22, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Feel free Fred 17:22, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Professional humor

Could be slightly more professionally written.

Your most incompetent Sysop Mister Mancala again ...

libel and slander 55stones 02:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

That is a link to Wikipedia, User:55stones. Please don't bring the problems you find there, here. An issue of Wikipedia can not be resolved here, but would have to be resolved there. Our SPOV is an attempt to circumvent those sorts of problems, you see? Terryeo 11:04, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Dear Anonymous, its neither libel nor slander to call these activities on Wikinfo "harassment" and "libel" (according to German law). Anyway we are all tired of the manipulations, the fanatcism and abuse of power which is so typical for Wikipedia admins (and, this seems particularly true for German Wikipedians). - Mr Mancala 03:38, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

According to the law of Colorado allegations or imputations of criminal activity are a defamation per se. So i ask a responsible person to remove the allegation of criminal activities, which Mr Mancala posted above. --84.56.65.85 05:32, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Mr Mancala removed any hint of personal attack. May I remind everyone there is little need for these sorts of confrontation because SPOV allows several articles on any subject. Simply present what you know to be the valid point of view in an article. Link it at the top of its page to similar articles. This will let readers understand the whole situation. We do want articles to be free of harrasement and particularly so with living persons. Terryeo 10:27, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

So where's our BLP policy? We must have one. Even though we have a system with different articles for different points of view, there will always be problems where some users won't like what they read (regardless of how it's put) and will try to delete it. This is evident in Wikipedian "criticisms" sections that get blanked and whatever. All I can say is cite all your sources. If that source is yourself, you should be ready to reap what you sow. --w^{L<speak·check>} 02:20, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

What is a "BPL POLICY" ? Terryeo 03:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

A BLP policy is a policy that deals with bographies of living people. --w^{L<speak·check>} 04:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Thank you Leon. That's right, we need a specific BPL policy. Terryeo 13:38, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I have assembled a list of our policies. Included is Wikinfo:Policy/Offensive. This is probably the first time a question of offence has arise, so a BLP policy doesn't exist yet. Terryeo 17:09, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I doubt that the law can be applied to anything happening among Germans living in Germany or an anonymous IP (in Germany even a pseudonym is not a legal person - so nobody was defamated per se). [1] - Mr Mancala 06:32, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

German language Wikinfo celebrates its 100th article

Please visit our introduction, which has an index of all articles. - Mr Mancala 03:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Wow, and most of them copyright-violations: Imported from de-wp without copying the article-history, which is required by the GFDL. Impressive... --84.56.65.185 10:59, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Why don't you add them yourself? This does bring a valid question. I don't remember if the old GetWiki software imported the history of the previous article, but now that we are using MediaWiki we should come up with a standard on how to include article histories as well. I see one way is to open Special:Import to everybody, instead of sysops. Or we can do what YTMND wiki does and include it on a talk subpage. --w^{L<speak·check>} 15:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Why should I add the histories? Do you enter the shop after the thief has left it and pay for the goods he has taken? --84.56.65.185 16:07, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

We never imported the history in the old GetWiki. We added a link below the article so that everybody can look up the former history of the article The same is done in countless commercial Wiki forks; e.g. the German article on mancala (1), (2), (3), (4). - 89.55.6.68 17:35, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Philosophically speaking, an article is available for import, as I understand the situation. Its attribution would let a person explore and understand how the article was developed if he were interested. So we don't deny information to a reader, but attempt to present the most current information to the reader. Terryeo 12:55, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

Please give a link if this copyvio problem has been solved since the above thread. I was the one while an user (now I'm a sysop) who created more than 100 French articles on wikinfo in 2005. Few were pasted-copied from French wikipédia. Alencon 06:25, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

As pointed out above, there was never a copyvio problem. - Mr Mancala

Custom JS and CSS

The custom style sheet and Javascript feature is disabled. Is it possible this can be turned on? w^{L<speak·check>} 07:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

FJB on Vacation

I believe FJB is on vacation at the Rainbow Family in Colorado. So hang tight till he comes back.WHEELER 20:12, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Ban Wikipedia imports

I am very close to leaving this project. I've reimported the Barry Bonds article because I felt the one here at Wikinfo was outdated. "No better way to make an updated article than import on from a project that is guaranteed to be updated to the minute". Okay, I may have been wrong for completely overwriting a previous article, my mistake. Blocking people for not following SPOV when we encourage importing articles from an NPOV encyclopedia. As I said before, articles do not magcially conform to SPOV! If we are going to continue this, I heavily suggest we either create an import policy or ban Wikipedia imports alltogether. --w^{L<speak·check>} 17:54, 9 August 2007 (EDT) (updated 18:08, 9 August 2007 (EDT)}

Here is a list of our policies, guidelines, etc. Wikinfo:Wikinfo. The one about importing articles is Wikinfo:Importing_articles, unfortunately it isn't completely up to date and could use some more work. Terryeo 17:13, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I have to admit that Leon is right about a clearly written, easily accessible policy. As far as I know there isn't one in place and probably should be. It just never occured to me that we would overwrite earlier imported articles. And particularly with a living person we have the legal aspect to deal with. I was in caution that an editor might edit Wikipedia to produce a slander in the Wikipedia article, at about the same moment an editor updated our Wikinfo article and brought us legal difficulty. Happy editing, Leon. Terryeo 19:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Libel is always a problem with any openly editable Wiki, not only Wikipedia. Even Conservapedia has the same issues, even though they hate to admit it. A vandal can come in and instantly cause BLP issues with any article. I think Wikipedia's BLP policy can easily be adapted to any Wiki, as it basically says don't do anything to any living person which may get us sued. Is it wise to import that policy into our project? --w^{L<speak·check>} 19:36, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Well Leon, I was attempting to let you understand in the fullest possible way, why I did what I did. And you are at least partially right, we don't have a real good, easily accessible policy about updating whole articles from other sources. Terryeo 19:42, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

FJB constantly imports updated articles from Wikipedia. You can import the latest Wikipedia article if no Wikinfo editor has edited it. If you do make sure the Wikinfo edits remain. WHEELER 20:30, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Okay, good. I'll try to make it clear why I banned WikiLeon. He imported a very large article that overwrote ALL of the article that was important and worked with here. In addition, WikiLeon is attempting to create a template that will do all of that on any article, by any editor if he places 5 or 10 template characters when he edits. I don't feel it is appropriate to proceed with that effort without the founder's input. It is my own opinion (and only my opinion) that User:FJB's intent does not include that we can capture biographys of living persons from Wikipedia (or other sources) with a template as WikiLeon is attempting. There is more to it, but be are creating something quite different than Wikipedia (which is only creating a small portion of what we might create) and Conservapedia (a supposedly Christian POV) and Citizendium (scholarly but biased in a few areas). Terryeo 03:10, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Biographies of Living Persons

Wikipedia has a policy with regards to Biographies of Living Persons, that states that people should be very careful when writing biographies about living persons, especially when writing anything that is negative in any way, and to ensure that it is absolutely referenced, and that the standard of referencing must be a much higher standard than usual.

On Wikinfo, an article was created entitled Criticisms of Wikipedia Review which in essence is a Biography of Living Persons, with regards to Adrian Meredith, the person who is the legal owner of Wikipedia Review.

In that article, allegations are made that Adrian Meredith is a holocaust denier, something which is a very negative comment to make. The article does not provide any references. A counter article, Broad Criticisms of Wikipedia Review provides evidence which disputes the claims made in Criticisms of Wikipedia Review.

Per Wikipedia's policy on Biography of Living Persons, the article on Adrian Meredith would be deleted, and oversighted, given that there is no proof that the allegations are true.

Furthermore, the article name is inappropriate, as only one person has ever made that allegation, hence the content of the article at Broad Criticisms of Wikipedia Review should be the only article that exists in relation to that topic. It is possible to criticise without defaming, and this should be encouraged.

I note that User:Mr Mancala has banned 7 users who attempted to remove the false allegations, and to impress this policy. These bans should be overturned.

Whilst Wikinfo does not have such a policy, they should have one, as it is based upon legal knowledge of these cases. This issue is one in which the person who has had the unauthorised biography made about them is seeking legal action with regards to.

I am sure that User:Fred Bauder, who owns Wikinfo and has good legal knowledge, would be in no doubt that the defamatory article must be deleted. 123.2.168.215 10:04, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I banned several users (mostly anonymous IPs) because they vandalized the page (removing its contents without discussing it first, re-directing it to fake articles (called "crap") and so on). Overturning these bans would mean to endorse and promote vandalism. - Mr Mancala 14:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Looking through Wikinfo's list of policy and guidelines, Wikinfo:Wikinfo, I can't find one about Biographys of Living Persons (BLP) but do find Wikinfo:Policy/Offensive. This is probably the first time a problem has arisen. Terryeo 17:45, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm new to Wikinfo, but a long time BLP/N volunteer on en.wikipedia. It is probably a good idea to have a similar BLP policy here, to protect the project from liability, and to prevent harm being done to real people. It would need to be completely recrafted however, since wikipedia's BLP policy draws heavily from their other core policies, some of which are inconsistent with the core policies here (which I am still learning about). - Crockspot 20:33, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Essentially, the policy here is to avoid doing anything that is mean or offensive to ordinary people. There is an exception for public figures who hold out promises of integrity and performance. You're free to trash them, if sources support it. But, basically, except for Hitler, the main article on any person, public figure or not, should portray them in a good light. Criticisms should be in a separate article, linked from the top of the page, for example, Criticism of George W. Bush Fred 21:37, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Wikinfo:Wikinfo

I've created an article of that name which is a collection of links containing information about Wikinfo. The vision of the founder, policy, guideline and all the rest are there, well, not quite all, yet. There is more work to do but it is the library of how to edit. Improvements welcomed. Terryeo 03:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

How about changing it to "Wikinfo:Library". or "Wikinfo:Wikinfo Library" For that is what it is. A library. Or just collapse Wikinfo:Wikinfo into Wikinfo:Welcome. There is a lot of redundancy. It is good that you made a list--which is very helpful, maybe you can collapse it into Wikinfo:Welcome.WHEELER 09:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I am putting the wikinfo owl on those pages. There might be a better title for that list than Wikinfo:Wikinfo. The articles used to begin with different first words: "MediaWiki", "Help:Contents" and "Wikinfo". I hope to collect all the policy, guideline, help editing, templates, and so forth into a box so we can easily reach in and grab what we need. What first name should we assign to the articles in the box? -uncertain- Terryeo 17:53, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Right, moved it to Wikinfo:Library. Terryeo 12:10, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that was the thing to do. Thanks for your organizing work and abilities!68.30.5.122 14:37, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Continuing - If a person will find the Navigation box at the top left of any page and click that "help" link, it goes to a Help Page. The Wikinfo:Library is available on that page. There's more to do, though. Happy Editing. Terryeo 19:45, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

What do people think of Wikinfo:Library now? I would also welcome opinions on Help:Contents. Terryeo 00:11, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Is it possible to separarate the list into separate category sections? Even though it has separators, it still looks unclear what each section of links represent as a whole. --w^{L<speak·check>} 16:18, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes. I've proposed to do this. Input would be appreciated. Terryeo 20:24, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Vanity pages

What is our policy about pages about ordinary people. After a certan person was exiled from Wikipedia, he came here and made articles about himself and the people who banned him. --w^{L<speak·check>} 16:18, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Please be explicit Fred 16:56, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

what do the facts you describe have to do with vanity? Tobias Conradi 20:41, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Where is stuff?????

I can't get to the Village Pump via the navigation box on the left. Can this be restored and I have lost all the special characters when you go to edit an article!!! Can this be restored also!!!!????. How did we lose the special characters? With all the Greek letters? I am sorely in need of them! What's happening?WHEELER 23:01, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikinfo:Edittools - the special characters. I noticed they were no longer at the bottom of an editing page and mentioned it to Fred but I am not sure how that happened.

Navigation Menu's Community Portal points to Wikinfo:Community Portal, the top line of that article points to our Village pump. Do you want it the other way around ? I am the one who changed it. Terryeo 06:10, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

I guess that is fine. Well, I hope we get them back. They were very very helpful.WHEELER 19:12, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia Review

We're going out of the Wikipedia Review business. Fred 19:45, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I am not sure any part of what we had was accurate, while I am sure a good part of it wasn't. I'm sorry to cut folks off abruptly, but we are not a Wikipedia Review review. Fred 19:47, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

See http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20070806/wikipedia-review-and-holocaust-denial/ Fred 20:05, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Surely that proves that they've been consistently accused of holocaust denial, hence validating it. Also, you missed one - Snowspinner scandal - which is surely a privacy invasion. 123.2.168.215 10:26, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikitruth too

Mostly due to pervasive privacy violations, both here and on the site. Fred 03:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Why isn't Wikitruth's article deleted from Wikipedia too? 123.2.168.215 10:26, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Why is that relevant here? Take it up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AFD or something, perhaps. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:48, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Restoring "missing" images

I'm actually not planning on doing this any time soon, but I was wondering if anyone had any qualms about someone restoring the "missing" images from the MediaWiki move (yes, one by one). (I suppose it'd also be possible to implement a bot, but I know not of such a thing.)

Just something that's crossed my mind every so often for a few months.

Tetrachrome 01:57, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Strangely, "click here to start a new discussion" at the top of the page resulted in a "fatal error ..." (PHP stuff, appears to be broken "protected" support?) -- could also just be me. Tetrachrome 02:00, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Test

Test Fred 03:15, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Fatal error

Fatal error: Call to private method EditPage::getPreloadedText() from context '' in /public/html/colorado/extensions/ProtectSection.php on line 107

I see Tetrachrome had the same problem above. Gmcfoley 20:45, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Could this possibly be due to (not) supplying an e-mail address? (I had initially signed up without doing so for a couple of days, upon which I attempted to post again (at the same time).) Tetrachrome 01:02, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I can't duplicate the problem. The two "test"s are what happened when I tried it. It's hard to see what an email address would have to do with it. Does the problem still continue? Fred 07:56, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The problem doesn't occur anymore (naturally), but the reference to the ProtectSection extension led to the thought of priviledges or such, when a new account is created but without supplying an address (e.g. vandals and the like). (I appeared to be able to post after supplying one, but, yes, OTOH I could be completely wrong about this whole thing.) Tetrachrome 15:21, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Correction -- yes, it does still happen, with the same text posted by Gmcfoley, regardless of what I've said above. Tetrachrome 18:49, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I too can confirm it is still happening. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Yep, still happening! Seems to be something to do with the 'new section' link, when the user can't enter a summary. Not that I really know, mind. Sam Wilson (Canberra, Australia) 19:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Test

Test two

Signing in

When and why? (From someone who doesn't mind "minor corrections" not being recorded on things done) Jackiespeel 09:59, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

We had a rather persistent ip vandal. Fred 17:54, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I mentioned the two I am aware of from Wikipedia (who appear to be monolingual and mono-Wiki). Can a link to the Village Pump be put under the Main Page links. Jackiespeel 18:37, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

The navigation menu shows Community portal as its second entry. Activating that leads to a page that links to this page as its very first word. Click, click and you're here. I would say there's nothing wrong with your suggestion, Jackiespeel, but there is some logic to the present set-up. Terryeo 13:10, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Template bug

Anyone got any ideas on why Template:Refbegin isn't working? See its talk page and User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox. — SMcCandlish 19:32, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Easy-to-fix bug in <references /> display

If the same reference is cited more than 26 times in an article, the following error message, in red, is spat out in the references section, once for every instance after 26: Cite error 7; Ran out of custom backlink labels, define more in the "cite_references_link_many_format_backlink_labels" message

Obviously, the file in question needs to be updated to have aa-zz at very least; I'd advise going to at least aaa-zzz if not aaaa-zzzz to handle extreme cases.

Why this is a problem worth fixing is readily apparent if you look at Glossary of cue sports terms#References. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:42, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Upload area PHP bug

A PHP error appears and interferes with the top-of-page menus in the uploads area (not when you first get there, I think, but after you upload a file. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:42, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Section editing bug

On many pages when you attempt to use the right-hand "[edit]" buttons to edit a section, the section loads as empty in the editing window. This does not affect all articles, nor even the same article all of the time, oddly enough. For example, half an hour ago I tried several times to edit sections at Snooker and got blanks. I edited the entire page instead. Now when I try to edit a section at that article it works just fine. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:42, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikinfo did a software changeover from one system to another. And all articles suffer from that. And yes, you discovered how to correct it. None of us here are software gurus so I guess it will go uncorrected.WHEELER 21:31, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

That seems to be the workable solution. Edit and save the whole article, with or without any changes. Then each section is available to be edited as it should have been in the first place. Terryeo 16:11, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Troubles at Wikipedia

It seems that Wikipedia is being split apart by two groups, "Inclusionists" and "Deletionists". It seems that Wikipedia is being undermined. Here is an article about the problem: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3O5IPUG5EQRHDQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/connected/2007/10/11/dlwiki11.xml
WHEELER 21:31, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Can a summary be provided - given that some newspaper articles become inaccessible after a few days to those not paying for the privilege. Jackiespeel 17:22, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Jimmy Wales started an article about some meat deli. It was deleted. It took two weeks of arguing and now it is there. Some say Wikipedia is being destroyed by the "deletionists" who require that a subject be "notable". New articles are being slowed to a trickle and websites are starting to save the deleted articles. Stubs are being deleted simply because they are not "notable".WHEELER 21:40, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it's the universal deletionists who are the problem, more the "I don't like articles on a certain subject" brigade.--Taxwoman 07:56, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Both things are going on. In fact, that is the most true thing you can say about Wikipedia, a lot of different stuff is going on. There are so many ways to be a crab... Fred 16:27, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I think the deletionists are definitely the problem there, and increasingly so, as the article correctly points out. They have adopted irrational and overly zealous “guidelines” that they quickly (too quickly) impose on the encyclopedia as if they are accepted policies. Among their sins is the trigger-happy policy of deleting stubs - humorously occurring even to Jimbo Wales! - conflating the term "notability" with that of "NOTORIETY" (and applying a "Number of Internet hits" standard to same) and an equally irrational and complex understanding of the word “copyright” that makes almost ALL images ineligible for publication online. That last action is making WP a barren and unfriendly place for would-be article writers. Needless to say, if any of this began happening here, I would leave this place quicker than I did WP, and I would be very sad it had migrated here. It helps that wikinfo not run by a Laissez-faire, uninterested, unimpressive Founder who allows the Mobocracy to run wild, bullying and rulemaking by fiat and misinterpretation. - Nhprman 19:46, 7 November 2007 (EST) (more rant on my WP User page.

I can't have a lot of sympathy for wikipedia's editing policy, as Jimmy Wales' insistence on certain policies lead to difficulties.

• "notable", or not, is an opinion.
• "neutral" or sympathetic, is an opinion.
• "slanderous" is sometimes an opinion.
• "refutable source" is sometimes an opinion.
  

Opinions contradict each other, yet almost anyone on the planet can edit wikipedia, almost like everyone else. This worked just fine in a young organization, when almost everyone was of like mind and making a mutual effort. But now we have unlimited storage space, hence unlimited article space, unlimited forking space and photos space. Yet editors argue about "notable". I don't believe wikipedia's editing policy can produce quality information. Terryeo 16:37, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

It does generally produce quality information, although not the sort of powerful and subtle information a reference work with more liberal policies could. Much of that sort of information IS opinion.[2] Fred 20:19, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Boy do I agree with you, Fred! Every gram of knowledge is somebody's opinion, or an agreement of opinions. Even the Supreme Court of the USA, arguably a most reputable opinion, has changed interpretation of their fixed document, the Constitution, a time or two. So how can we nudge the knowledge of many opinions, into broadly useful, quality knowledge? I opine that powerful and subtle presentation of knowledge is akin to simple and direct presentation of knowledge. Both can only be generated by people who understand that knowledge, who have actual experience with that knowledge. Therefore, SPOV rather than NPOV. But Mr. Wale's goal and fixed policy has produced popular knowledge. That popularity might spring from people's urge to help others, to present individual opinion in an effort to help other people who can use such knowledge. With nothing built into Mr. Wale's system to increase the quality of knowledge, people are doing the best they can toward a better encyclopedia by removing what they consider to be trivial knowledge. This then saves other people time and trouble. Terryeo 21:08, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

That's just the problem - what they consider to be trivial knowledge. They say that Wikipedia is not paper, so there is space for everything. There are dozens of articles on Japanese cartoon characters and second-rate professional footballers, but evidently that's not trivial. But an article on Wipipedia, the leading web site of its kind, is trivial, and if you disagree, your argument is dismissed as WP:ILIKEIT. Wipipedia is so trivial that it survived two AfDs and a DRV before they finally got it on the third AfD! -Taxwoman 12:30, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Of course I agree that any wiki should have an article about itself. If I understand what you're saying, a relatively small group of dedicated editors (who hold a common opinion) prevented an article about wikipedia? How did they do it? My opinion - it might be likened to politics, where an editor calls up a friend, and calls in a favor. His method - he uses several screen names and is careful not to use more than one in a single article. He encourages friends of his several screen names to get involved in an AfD. Some have called wikipedia a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORG) where you win when your point of view overwhelms your opponent who shouldn't have volunteered his opposition, anyway. You use communication lines outside of discussion pages. For a high school student, it is a big win to overcome your adult (or expert) opponent. You have raised your voice higher than an adult or expert. The validity of the information is trivial compared to winning against an adult / expert. I think I would characterize it as a Massive Multiplayer Online Political Game. In a game like that, it only makes sense to maintain several screen names, each with a circle of friends, else how can you quash your opponents? Terryeo 06:41, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Good rant, but you misunderstood Taxwoman. She was talking about a Wikipedia article about Wipipedia. Fred 08:28, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh hell. lol. You're right. Terryeo 10:42, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Not to worry. Lots of people confuse Wikipedia and Wipipedia.-Taxwoman 16:28, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Like me. I thought she was a Wikipedia administrator. But all's well that ends well. Fred 00:01, 7 November 2007 (EST)