Wikipedia commentary/Wikipedia Anti-Rules Talk

The Cunctator's Anti-Rule: Delete or overwrite that which annoys you in any way.

Response to rule 9):

I'll break the ice in replying to these to suggest that there is at least one good reason for changing an article from British English to American or vice versa: if you, a writer of one dialect, add paragraphs or otherwise substantially change the content of an article in the other dilect, and don't feel competent to copyedit your own changes in the other dialect, by all means just copyedit the whole article in yours, regardless of where it started. --LDC

LDC: Surely editing British English isn't that hard? I can easily write either. (Though in practice I'm lazy so I write a mishmash, using British spellings one moment and American spellings the next...) -- Simon J Kissane

I'm probably far more qualified than most Americans; I wrote most of the article here on British/American? differences. But no, I don't consider myself qualified to copyedit British text, so I wouldn't consider 95% of Americans (and probably 80% of Brits :-) qualified to do so. It's a far more complex issue than making sure you spell "colour" and "specialise" differently, and even grammar like "the team are..."; there are also matters of usage that are not covered in that article. Also all texts are understood in the context of a culture, and even those of us who have mastered the spelling and grammar differences can't be sure that the words we use have the same cultural connotations. Often that doesn't matter, but when you're writing, say, about politics or culture itself, it matters a lot. --LDC

First of all let Cunctuator sell a Cunctipedia when enough HD space exists on the PC-unctuator. Second, it does grow weary to try so hard to propose that a new paradigm in an article exists(see New Age revison history), then find all these "science guys" slamming the book of rules(the 500 yr old scientific progress report) down. Third, where the hell is Kuala Lampur and why doesn't he feed them Koalas instead of making them wait around while he over-edits anything he wants ? "The Mate with a grate" eh ?--BF

BF - I'd gladly respond to this if I even vaguely understood what your complaint was. Kuala Lumpur is the capital city of Malaysia.

You're not supposed to be proposing new things. You're supposed to be reporting on existing things in an unbiased manner. If you are interested in doing something different, do it elsewhere!

Ok and if we all were unbiased you who are such experts in wikipediatrics would either be at peace or more boring than you already are. Thanks Manning for that nice lecture in newage/talk. I am learning =)

wrong - I never said I am unbiased. Hell, I have some very some very strong beliefs. But I endeavour at all costs to ensure I don't report them as "the truth" in the Wikipedia. It's an issue of giving fair consideration to all. - MB

Manning is biased against bias.

You got a problem with that??? Meet me outside!

---

A comment on the "anti-rules" page at present: this page is a disgrace. I wish you would all agree to delete it. It just causes more ill-will, and the joke has run very thin. --LMS

Larry - with all due respect, could you substantiate your claim that this page causes "ill-will"? I acknowledge that you have opposed it from day one (as is your right), but I find it quite funny myself, and I suspect I am not alone. However, if it is really upsetting the majority of people then by all means delete it. I'm just not convinced that that is the case. - MB

LMS, you are, generally speaking, the most biased person i have encountered on the Wikipedia and the most insistent about imposing your biases on others. It seems to me that you are hypersensitive to any criticism of yourself, your opiions, or Wikipedia. I'm sure your motives are of the best but I really think you need a serious re-examination of your values on this.

That's what he's paid for. Without someone "imposing values" on the project, it will just degrade into Everything2. The primary value we want to impose is to direct our efforts into producing a useful product: an encyclopedia, with good information, well written, easy to use, and easy to update. I happen to think a little vigorous debate and black humor along the way is a good thing too; Larry apparently is less enthusiastic about those things. But I don't for a moment argue with the need for Larry to enforce a sense of direction on the project. Without that, we won't have an actual product. --LDC

Yeah, what LDC said :) - MB

Agreed. But I like this page. Lighten up, Larry. :) --STG

This page encourages us to treat each other with contempt and hostility, when we should be working together on this project, in a spirit of friendly collaboration. I really don't think you people get it. Not all humor is constructive. I do think we should delete this page. It sucks and it is completely unfunny. --LMS

No, Larry, it encourages us to remember that though we might disagree about many things on Wikipedia, we should keep things in perspective and not take our squabbles as deadly serious. Many Wikipedians do see this page as increasing the spirit of friendly collaboration that we like in Wikipedia.

Right, we shouldn't take our squabbles as deadly serious. The page decidedly doesn't increase the spirit of friendly collaboration, though. It constitutes a way for people to humiliate other people at work on the project in good faith.

This is humor, Larry, the "contempt and hostility" are joke "contempt and hostility", a reminder not to fall into real contempt and hostility on these bases.

There are others who might very well take it differently. I certainly do. Because you, if you were to write one of the items here, wouldn't intend contempt and hostility, that doesn't mean that that'd be an illegitimate interpretation.

Monty Python used to have a "pantomime Princess Margaret". Nobody mistook her for the real Princess Margaret. We would have to wonder about anyone who did.

You are missing the point. --LMS

Methinks the Larry doth protest too much - clasqm

I guess I'll have to wait for the next round to find out what that's supposed to mean. :-) --LMS

Larry, if you don't like the damn page, stop checking up on it!

Other people like it. Is anyone else complaining to you about it?

Why do you care what I think about it? :-) Maybe I'm flogging a dead horse here, but I really care about the point I'm making. I'm stressing the point because I hate what the page represents: the wrong attitude toward the social atmosphere of Wikipedia. The page can be very easily and justifiably regarded as unfriendly, unwelcoming, and hostile to newcomers. You might not see it that way, but it can be perfectly justifiably taken that way.

To take the first example that fell to hand, someone wrote:

20) Use font colours and formatting to express your individuality! . We want to fill the Wikipdia with personal touches.

There are new members who might, seeing this and seeing that they are the butt of a joke, will understand that there are other people lurking about--maybe everyone on Wikipedia, for all they can guess--who get a low sort of pleasure from making fun of, rather than gently and diplomatically correcting, the bad habits of others. I guess that many of you who are defending this page don't really realize this, or care.

It's not that we don't "realize" point, it's that we don't agree with you. I think that everyone recognizes this as a good-spirited spoof. Except you, of course. ;-) --STG

Don't worry; I won't delete it myself. That's really all I want to say. Now, keep flaming away. :-) --LMS