Wikipedia Notes from User:Wwwwolf

In unrelated news, deletion is still broken

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:50:32 +0000

Okay, some time ago, they blew up the Wikipedia article on Exaile. (One of the major Linux music players obviously needs no article.) Now, they've blown up the article on MyPaint.

The latter is an annoying case. No, admittedly there's no sources. Nominator says "we shouldn't have a consensus for deeming most FOSS as notable" - well, duh, maybe we should craft actual software notability criteria then, it seems to be AWOL at the moment, and it's a tad bit annoying that the software notability has to be judged solely through the common notability criteria (i.e. availability of outside coverage). But Exaile's case showed that even reviews in high-profile web sites shouldn't be trusted. The fact that Blender guys endorse MyPaint is obviously not important at all. What the hell can we trust these days, then? Do we need the third-party books nowadays?

We need the MyPaint article. Where's MyPaint's press coverage? Should I blame them for not publicising the project better?

And at the same time, we get more and more and more bullshit articles that no one even looks at. If the deletionists are winning, why the hell does the site have over 3 million articles? Why?

And an actual quote from the deletion discussion: "Thank god we don't have a bunch of "WP:IAR" hand wavers this time around and can delete this cleanly." Yeah, especially when everyone who values their sanity stays the hell away from AfD. I've been writing a webcomic about assassins lately, and haven't done that much research into the topic yet, but even I know that best way to murder someone in the night is to make sure no weird helpful people buzz around and stay concerned about wellbeing of others. With attitudes like this, it's easy to see why I don't follow AfD any more.

And let's not forget the whole recent deletion and deletion reviews discussions around Human disguise. Hundreds of kilobytes. Thousands of words. A few million bullets. No answers.

Here's an analogy that I posted on my user page today:

Sticking articles in AfD is like seeing a book being fed in a wood chipper. Very slowly. There's no point in trying to save the book from being destroyed once the process has already started because the damage has already been done. The rednecks with shotguns think it's hilarious to do this sort of stuff, and you don't want to annoy people with shotguns. With enough determination and hard work, those books can, theoretically, be rearranged back into coherent wholes if you salvage all pieces of paper. Ultimately, in this situation we can at least comfort ourselves that not everybody engages in this sort of hideous destructive behaviour. Far from it.

In summary: with each case like this, my faith in the workability of AfD decreases. We need some new process to replace it.

Articles get murdered in the night.

So yeah, I've probably snapped. I just can't defend our deletion processes any more. I'm not having a complete mental breakdown here.

I'm not blaming anyone here. I try not to call anyone names - the above comment about shotgun-wielding ignoramus psychopats is an obvious exaggeration and anyone who doesn't get that is an obvious n00b who has no idea about our consensus on humour.

I'm against these prevalent negative attitudes.

Simply put, I'm against the notion that producing hundreds of kilobytes of deletion and deletion review discussions is somehow helping the community to build an encyclopedia. We're pretending we're seeking consensus and acting toward the good of the website. We failed to realise that the site is growing too fast for AfD to handle.

I still somehow have faith in tomorrow. Somehow.

I just wonder why no one's fixing things.
I mean, I can't. I've got to go draw more stuff using the awesome graphics application that doesn't exist because some nascent philosopher figured out its existence is original research. Damn. Can't really argue with that.
Do I sound jaded again? Sorry...

More pondering on open source meritocracy and {{sofixit}}

Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:57:25 +0000

I posted this as a reply to one comment on Amarok 2.0.2 release, where people were saying the Amarok team is under no obligation to react to any requests:

Of course such choices are up to the developers. But all too often, "Go code it yourself" means "I'm not discussing this feature request (or whatever) with any other developers, nor any other prospective developers"; it's incredibly arrogant and deluded to expect that everyone who wants the features are willing and able to implement them, but it is not so arrogant and deluded to expect that there's someone out there who can do that thing. Rejecting the ideas right off the bat results in a lot of wasted time because people didn't even know that some people want something done. This could happen: Someone brings up feature requests, nothing happens because the devs reject the idea; three years later, someone else comes up with a feature request, nothing happens either; three years still, someone thinks "why the hell this program doesn't have this feature when it'd obviously make the program much better, I'll go code it myself". Nine years, and hey presto, we've got functionality.
The lesson learned: Don't reject clearly feasible feature requests. It's better to have a 9-year-old open feature request ticket in your Bugzilla, than sixteen saying the exact same thing and all tagged WONTFIX. Gauge the popularity of the requests: if a feature request gets five bazillion Bugzilla votes, it might not be a good idea to put all energy in your new pet ideas.

I'm against "meritocracies" because allegedly clueless people can sometimes have good ideas too, and open source world is often exactly the kind of clueless meritocracy where good ideas are often rejected because they're presented by allegedly clueless people. And worse yet, these allegedly clueless people might be the people to code the new features, but for some reason, they just don't feel motivated for whatever reason. Meritocracies must be tempered by open mind, channels for communication, and lack of contempt for the populace at large.

Sure, I'd love to see (say) a frigging working ReplayGain in Amarok. I can program. But what makes people think I know anything about KDE? Or finer points on how the hell ReplayGain is actually supposed to work, for that matter? Capability ("Yeah, I know a little bit about C++ and can program myself out of the proverbial paper bag") doesn't automatically translate to expertise ("Yeah, I know stuff about Qt and KDE frameworks and can build Amarok from source if I need to") and motivation ("Yeah, I we need the ReplayGain") don't necessarily translate to actual work ("Let's build this").

That said, I'm definitely not against handing out {{sofixit}} advice as such. All I'm saying is that people should always be aware what needs to be done to improve the project. Currently, I have two projects sitting in github.com, and I'm not sure when or if I can improve them much, so pretty much everything will go in the "go code it yourself" category; yet, the project wikis are open and you can fork the projects easily to work on them, so feel free to document your requrements.

Conservapedia or Wookieepedia?

Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:44:33 +0000

I'm a latecomer to the party, but I have to say that RationalWiki rules. And before I got here, I paid zero attention to Conservapedia (my previous Conservapedia rant was based on material discovered through RW, by the way). Now that I'm following What Is Going On At Convervapedia, I'm seeing stuff that I find just... weird.

For comparison - how did I become a Wikipedia admin? Oh, random editing here, random tweaking there, speaking some sense here, comprehending Stuff, and another user proposed me for adminship. After the discussion was over, I was just magically sitting there with a trolley full of advanced janitorial tools and no clue where to go. The sky was the limit. I went and proved my worthiness by destroying useless garbage... all by my own... with only me responsible for what I did. So far, I've mostly done pretty harmless stuff - only a few user blocks based on more than ample evidence that someone's in dire need of cooling down.

So how does the stuff work at Conservapedia?

RationalWiki's description of this stuff as a conversation between a Sith Lord and an apprentice is pretty spot on.

"Permanent or 5-year blocks for vandals; short blocks measured in days for people who are counterproductive, as in the non-stop talkers." (Aschlafly)

Yes, that's right: counterproductivity is a bannable offense in Conservapedia. I get annoyed really fast if someone's calling me counterproductive without paying me to work, but that's just me.

Oh, my misunderstanding - actually counterproductivity is "non-stop talking". If there's anything I've learned in my career as a Wikipedia admin, it's that there's no such thing as too much communication. Lack of communication leads only to misunderstandings and ill will: If you can't tell what the heck the other people were trying to accomplish, it's probably up to anyone's interpretation. If I do something that requires an extended explanation, I'll give one, rather than remain a Faceless Bully Admin.

But this tour-de-force was what really silenced me:

"KonstantinL is a good candidate for a block. His user name is dubious and first edit smacks of an attempt at 'liberal humor.' Many of these cases are pathetic. If you don't block him, I will. A permanent block would be appropriate, though you could choose a shorter time if you think there might be something of value in this user." (Aschlafly)
"Well done, Rod. Your promotion is thoroughly deserved." (Bugler)
14:03, 25 November 2008 RodWeathers blocked KonstantinL with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Liberal vandalism)
...
"Great blocks!" (Aschlafly)

Why do I get the picture of "a local Hells Angels chief tells the hang-around to eat a dog alive"? This is so delightfully villainous in literary sense!

You know, speaking of Star Wars, I liked Anakin Skywalker's fall from grace. Being a good guy sometimes sucks, because villains are sometimes so awesome it hurts! How oh how did I end up with the good guys, and not the "blood and souls for Aschlafly" crowd?

We support Conservapedia, apparently...

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:08 +0000

This is a little bit funny: Conservapedia says "We love you, Finland!" Apparently, according to Alexa, we are the second most important source of Conservapedia readers. Way to go!

Which is hardly perplexing - I believe I speak for the entire nation when I say Finns love hilarious web sites. I believe this is a good example of the fact that hit counters don't tell you the whole picture: they tell you "how much?", but not "why?"...

This is a very secular country, with values that are quite different from American conservative values.

For example, I find it particularly funny that Conservapedia's Finland article begins:

Republic of Finland [...] is a country of northern Europe known for its largely social democratic economic system. The Finnish conservative party, the National Coalition led by Jyrki Katainen, is its principal conservative organization.

You put the important things right at the beginning of the article, right?

What can I say as a Finnish citizen? Well, the focus here is pretty much on weird things. (Puts the hat down, sits down and waxes poetic) What makes our country great? Our serenity and our safety! (Gaze firmly in the horizon, arm uplifted poetically) The deep woods, the little lakes, its nature in magnificence, and our dedication to keep it that way; our people, quite honest and rational in nature, sturdy and hard-working, oft undefeated in fields of sports; and not often rivalled in intelligence and resourcefulness, crafty in ways of culture and technology; our beautiful language, our distinct character, our delightful quirks; our love of the country and unquestioned will to defend it - yet also our ever-growing open approval of other nations and our adaptation to the ways of the world without worries over losing our own nature...
(Back to planet Earth)
[I, of course, mean every word - the funny part is supposed to be the poetic tone. 'cause no one speaks like this. =) ]

...and there's nothing to that in the opening. I mean, Wikipedia covers stuff pretty boringly, but at least the WP article lead list stuff that matters.

In turn, Conservapedia's lead section just highlights the boring part. Yeah, Finland is a mixed economy. (And, incidentally, it has nothing as such to do with Social Democracy, other than the fact that AFAIK Social Democrats support mixed economies.) Yeah, we have a big "conservative" party - a centre-right one, who don't seem to have US-style unilateralism in their dictionary, what with getting us to join the EU (not a bad thing, in my opinion) and now saying we should've joined NATO too, like, yesterday (well, I'm not sure about this one). Big and mighty hype, and a curious party to highlight too, considering Conservapedia doesn't even mention Christian Democrats...

That's just about the only big funny thing about that article. Everyone else would focus on facts that actually define the country in some quantifiable manner - but Conservapedia goes on and harps about facts that interest absolutely no one, unless you're an enthusiastic capitalist and conservative.

I don't have much time today to rip through the rest of the article - a part of it seems to resemble truth - but there's small curious things. For example, section on political parties says "Political activity by communists was legalized in 1944, and although four major parties have dominated the postwar political arena, none now has a majority position" - I don't know how to interpret this, and the history of Communism in Finland is so convoluted that no one can make heads or tails of it, but I'm not sure if anyone would have ever called any of their influence "domination of postwar political arena" around here. Communists have been pretty much a minor force in politics for several decades now.

Vagueness is the key to victory: "The origins of the Finnish people are still a matter of conjecture, although many scholars argue that their original home was in what is now west-central Siberia." Some argue that Siberia is, shall we say, a big place. (I'd have personally thrown a dart around the bend of the Volga and say "well, Fenno-Ugric-speaking people possibly, maybe, originated here-ish". But what do I know?)

Also, the article mentions Mika Waltari, Väinö Linna and J.L. Runeberg as "the great masters of Finnish literature". None of these are actually covered in Conservapedia yet, for reasons unknown. I'm, of course, attributing this to the priorisation - after all, Gay Bowel Syndrome is an immediate threat and such has to be covered immediately, works of literature are of secondary importance - but still, one has to wonder if they will remain uncovered. Runeberg came before the other two... obviously, a great master of literature for that huge amount of greatly patriotic verse that he produced. Then we get Mika Waltari, who wrote a depressing but enlightening tale regarding the (godless) Egyptians and how the human nature has remained constant through centuries. Then we have Väinö Linna, who wrote Tuntematon sotilas, originally controversial but in recent times considered a time-tested patriotic work, often lauded as the single greatest rebuttal of jingoistic bullshit and depiction of the horrors of war ever written - clearly prime material for Conservapedia.

"...and finally, in general and in particular: Give thy guidance to the lords of Finland, so that they shall not, for the second time, go forth and ram their heads on the pines of Karelia. Amen." -Tuntematon sotilas, ch. 12, IV (my translation)

Yawn, slow vandalism fixups - and other silliness

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:19:56 +0000

Let's look at Hats (party), where we see curious things happening in recent history, showing that the more articles we have, the longer it probably takes to fix vandalism...

21:03, 27 October 2008 Wwwwolf m (5,077 bytes) (Reverted edits by 71.37.109.57 (talk) to last version by DragonBot)
06:10, 20 October 2008 71.37.109.57 (5,062 bytes)
06:09, 20 October 2008 71.37.109.57 (5,078 bytes) (→Policy)

(shit, son, the rollback button actually did what it says in the tin!) ...and also, when we look at the article itself, we see some other curious long-reaching historical things:

The Hats were a political faction during the Age of Liberty (1719-1772) in Sweden. [...]
Policy: [The neutrality of this article is disputed.]

Well, the actual text of the article is clearly too long to read for my tired mind right now, but I'll just remind you that I usually see this sort of terrifying disclaimers in... uh... articles about currently existing political parties.

Too bad BJAODN is dead. Don't do the Hat party! Politics is confusing and boring. Let's do party hats instead!

Can't help but wonder... (wait, this is an awful title for a blog post)

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:12:36 +0000

Sorry for the rant. Stuff like this seem to sometimes happen. Despite of what people keep telling, weird stuff happens in Wikipedia all the time. This is one such case.

A snippet of the move log:

05:18, 3 March 2008 Reptaboy moved Instant messaging to Instant messaging & messengers ‎ (Instant messaging is one thing and Messengers is another)

Yes, that's March 3rd. March 3rd.

Now, instant messaging is a hugely popular thing, no? I talk with my friends over Jabber every weekend or so. People IRC and stuff. One of the most important things people do online! One of the Internet's most important application groups! Yeah! As a result, it's an important topic for an encyclopaedia.

And out of blue, without any discussion, someone renames the page and gives a rather cryptic explanation.

No one flinches.

No one looks in the Manual of Style Naming Conventions section and sees if it's suddenly okay to list synonyms in the article title. Or use a trendy, lowering-IQ-with-a-sledgehammer "&" instead of "and".

Computing Wikiproject lists the article as "B-class" and "High importance".

And no one flinches when the page gets moved to this dubious title.

And it stayed there for over 5 months.

Let me remind you again: B-class. High importance.

None were amazed when they saw weird stuff on their watchlists. None of our esteemed computer experts looked at list of highly important computing topic and went "oh, seems we've had good progress on this article on... what the hell?"

*sigh* People used to boast that vandalism tends to get dealt with promptly, but sometimes, good-faith but questionable editorial choices remain up there for long time and no one dares to work on them. Even if it's in a very blatant place like the article title. In a rather prominent, important article.