User talk:MZMcBride/Memes

Ched's Scratchpad

I'm kinda liking this idea. Couple things that crossed my mind, but I haven't fleshed out (yet).

Famous does not equal Notable

Actually it does in the end. Famous leads to press coverage, which results in reliable resources, which equals verifiable notability.

Net positive

Usually seen at RfA, often means that candidate has done more good things than bad

consensus and not truth

Actually a mis-quote used by mainstream media of our WP:V policy. (see Larry Sanger)

assume belly button

Not sure how to work this, but it means we're human, and we make mistakes.

ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT are not reasons to !vote

People tapdance around this everyday, and rationalize their votes by searching for some other things they think people will buy.

Article:X violates Guideline:Y

Violates? .. some things don't meet a certain criteria, and all of a sudden they are "violating" something.

Cabal

There is, there isn't. We're all individuals (excluding socks), but some folks do stick together through thick and thin. We find people who share many of our own ideas and beliefs, and we will often find a way to side with them in a debate, even if it is at a subconscious level.

Naval gazing

Should probably be the last item on the list for the sake of irony/humor

I may stop back and have a look at this later - I kinda do like the idea, and I think it might have legs. — Ched : ? 08:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Poles" vs. "Polls"

Is this a deliberate error? Seems a bit potentially offensive. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. m:Poles are evil. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to MZ, he's a well known Albanian with a hatred for all things Cuban </satire> Keegan^talk 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard Keegan participated in The Troubles and is a devout follower of Prem Rawat. Just saying. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And from what I understand you are personally responsible for the "Gdansk Affair", and perhaps the Bombing of Dresden as well. He's full of more lyes than soap. Keegan^talk 05:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ewwww... Keegan - that was almost as bad as some of Bugs' puns. :O — Ched : ? 05:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I consider that a compliment Bugs was Wahkeenah. Keegan^talk 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are not mere memes!

Several of them have specific backgrounds. Dismissing them out of hand can actually get you in trouble.

X is not a vote

Because X really isn't a vote. It's a poll structured discussion. The mixup is in two parts: first up

"vote" stands for "Majority vote" (for any value of majority)
"poll" stands for "Opinion poll" or better :"poll structured discussion"

In a proper vote, you discuss options beforehand, and then take a (secret) ballot to choose a course of action, which is then binding on everyone forthwith. This is an exceptionally problematic approach when writing an encyclopedia. (Let's hold a vote on whether a. 1+1=1, b. 1+1=2, c. 1+1=10, d. 1+1~=2.5 )

Instead, in a poll structured discussion, you might find out what all the positions are, and then switch over to some other form of discussion. Poll structured discussions are just one of many forms of reaching consensus, which you can mix and match at will.

For instance, we might have people putting forward the opinion 1+1=10 and 1+1=2 come to the conclusion that these different forms come from different Points Of View, and combine them to achieve a neutral article.

(incidentally, can you guess what points of view are represented by a,b,c, and d? a. chemistry: 1 mol C + 1 mol O = 1 mol CO. b. arithmetic, counting @ + @ = @@ c.binary (binary 10 = decimal 2) d. biology: 1 male human + 1 female human ~= 2.5 kids on average.))

If ten people vote to delete and eleven vote to keep, you have a few possible scenarios. Admin closes as "no consensus," both sides are angry. Admin closes as "delete," eleven people scream about how X is not a vote. The other ten people scream that polls are evil. It's not a good situation. --MZ

Adminship is no big deal

Admins are actually rather constrained these days. The amount of damage that an admin can still do these days is negligable, compared to the good old days, where admins could do actual irreversible damage or even bring the wiki down.

The original reason we had an admin flag is to constrain the ability to do irreversible actions to those who we trust "would not blow up the wiki". The actual utility of the admin flag in modern times largely escapes me. (I have mine turned off, for instance)

Some of our pages get thousands and thousands of hits each minute. You used to be able to vandalize the sitenotice and only a few people would notice or care. Nowadays, thousands of people will see it nearly instantly. And they'll write e-mails and post talk page messages and it will be a big deal. The site's enormous growth has made adminship more of a big deal, regardless of whether admins can do irreversible harm. --MZ

Blocks are (must be!) preventative

They are meant to be preventative, to prevent people from doing bad or unwise things. Early on they were even used almost for fun, or to draw attention of admins in special circumstances. (A blocks B: "Watch out!", B unblocks self (!) "I'm watchin' I'm watchin!")

If they are used for punishment, negative spirals occur where people get punished, become angry, and act more and more abusively over time. Continued abuse of blocks for punishment will erode a community over time.

A very negative spiral. But some blocks simply aren't preventative. Vandalism blocks prevent ongoing vandalism. Arbitration blocks prevent ongoing disruption. The other blocks.... --MZ

Poles are evil

No they're not. I like poles a lot!

As for polls, well yes they are prone to abuse (see under: X is not a vote).

The Polls are evil trick comes to en.wikipedia via elian, jimbo wales, and me. I asked jimbo about whether he knew ways to make people think better before simply jumping into polls, and he mentioned that elian found a solution on de.wikipedia involving this trick. ;-)

Arbitration committee is not a court

2 reasons why this is true:

Legal: because arbitrators are not members of the judicial branch of any nation. Arbitrations can be set up to mirror judicial proceedings, but in the end, they are not judicial proceedings
Practical: Arbitration committee does not rule in favor of either party. They rule in favor of the wiki.

I wouldn't say every court rules in favor of a particular party. Though I also wouldn't say every Arbitration case doesn't rule in favor a party. Some cases are very one-sided. I also don't agree that a court must be part of a judicial branch of a nation. Kangaroo court? :-) --MZ

DRV is not AFD 2

In fact, DRV is just plain evil... ;-)

How so? It usually leads to a final conclusion. Though it's pretty easy to game. --MZ

Policy is Descriptive, not Prescriptive

Nothing may be permitted to trump consensus. Therefore the only role policy can play is as a description of consensus that was previously reached.

The reason for this rule is because of the tight link between consensus and the neutral point of view (which is often defined as the consensus between competing views).

By giving consensus primacy, it becomes that much harder to unintentionally violate NPOV for long periods of time

People regularly quote the current version of a policy page as The Gospel™. It's very worrying. --MZ

How about a nice cup of tea

You cannot participate in a negotiated, rational consensus process if you are angry, or if you are assuming bad faith. Sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and then think things over.

Agree with you've written. I'm not sure WP:TEA is applied appropriately on the wiki, though. People seem to find the most pissed-off editor and offer them tea. Oftentimes it seems to be a violation of WP:BEAR. --MZ

!vote

!vote=current position in a consensus discussion. I agree that this is VERY obfuscated wording.

It's like a joke that was funny a few years ago and now it just pains me every time I see someone using it. :-/ --MZ

stop violating point

For once we agree. I've actually seen people violating the actual WP:POINT policy as written and intended accuse me of this from time to time. It's funny!

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Which is why I tend to do things like delete ill-structured polls, even if they happen to be going my way.

The majority is not necessarily right, they may have simply not had a chance to read up. (I can't remember how many times that happened to me while I was part of said majority ;-) )

If you can convince me of your position in a rational way, I will act in support of that position. I'm not going to wait for others to catch up, they can do that in their own time.

"Provided the reasoning is rational: I have to do as you say, and you have to do as I say" -- User:Eloquence

The problem is that oftentimes we do have majority votes for things. In fact, Jimmy called for one during the rollback mess. And sometimes, as heretical as it sounds, having a majority vote is a Good Thing. Can we agree on that much? --MZ

Cool down blocks are prohibited

Really? Dang, I loved those!

Well, the meme is that they're prohibited. In reality, people use them occasionally and it always leads to drama. --MZ

Rogue/rouge

Search me!

The first step on the way to recovery from wikiholism. Not many succeed, alas.

Seems like a good way to violate meatball:GoodBye, y'know? --MZ

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Getting into trouble? :-) In general, the page mixes snark and seriousness. I'll put some responses above. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored

You won't find Hello.jpg at the Goatse.cx article.--M4gnum0n (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We got pwned. harej 13:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time heals. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love it

1 user loves this. Killiondude (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue?

I had thought that this page contained the "wrong venue" Wikipedianism. Could one successfully add this? Killiondude (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! --MZMcBride (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]