Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:00, 7 January 2006

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).

Please add new topics at the bottom of the page.

News archive

Discussions older than 14 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These dicussions will be kept archived for 14 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 14 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Anon. page creation disabled

As an experiment, page creation by anonymous users has been disabled on the English Misplaced Pages. This was announced by Jimbo Wales on the WikiEN mailing list . The Seigenthaler case is stated as one of the motivating factors. Anonymous users can still create Talk pages. The text that anonymous users see when attempting to edit is at Mediawiki:Nocreatetext, if users have comments on the wording. -- Creidieki 19:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the link. I guess I'm wondering if people are remembering that creating "new" pages is necessary to properly nominate articles for AfD, FAC, etc. Lack of people doing newpages patrol, and the increased 'noise' from ever-increasing tolerance of users adding large quantities of micro-stubs seem like problems that solving would provide more benefit than restricting anons. IE 'nothing but an infobox or navbox' should be speediable, as should bios that don't say who, what, and when, etc. And another note from Jimbo said to the effect of 'we should accomodate the occasional school article, but it would be a problem if people start mass adding them'. Well, mass adding has started--dozens of small school articles that say nothing but that it's a school, and maybe the district and/or city name, have been created recently. 24.17.48.241 20:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea; a staggering number of new pages are garbage. I am wondering if it would be a good idea to add some text about how easy it is to create a new account to Mediawiki:Nocreatetext. I see stuff on the Web about registering, and I shudder (or turn to Bugmenot.) Adding such text could encourage honest anon editors to register (but it could encourage vandals, too...) Massysett 20:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This is outrageous. So many articles are started by anonymous users, and now we deny them the possibility to contribute. There was absolutely no reason to do that, and so many reasons why this shouldn't have been done. We say that "everyone can edit" yet we disable the basic functionality of asking question on Talk. Wrong, so very wrong. Incredibly wrong.  Grue  20:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason for this. After all, this is meant to be the 💕. FireFox 20:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an experiment. Give it a few days. I don't think it is useful either, but hey, they can switch it off again. After all, you're only discouraging sincere users. Kids who want to add their primary school, and vandals who want to create bogus articles will just create a throwaway account, and add an extra line of garbage to the database in doing so. Jimbo's post shows awareness of all this. If he decides the effect is not beneficient, it'll just be switched back to the way it was. dab (ᛏ) 20:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The free part does not refer to the ability of anybody to create pages. For example, Nupedia was also a 💕, while being very far from allowing anonymous editors to contribute. Given the amount of nonsense created by anonymous users at newpages, I personally as a new-pages-patroller hope the change is permanent. Thue | talk 21:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we have stats for what proiportion of new pages created by anons are vandalism of one form or another? I believe it is quite high - when vandal-watching I always check new pages by anons, and it seems to me that most of them are ether speediable or spam. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / (W) AfD? 16:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that they are still able to create new Talk pages. I haven't tested the other namespaces. -Splash 20:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Just my opinion here, but when I first used Misplaced Pages in 2002, I was quite shocked to find that I could just go ahead and edit an article with nobody knowing who I was, not registering or anything. I think that being allowed to do that without registering almost encourages new users to do something silly, like try out wiping a whole page or adding nonsense to the page or just writing a page about their pet dog, just because they can. Greater accountability would increase the integrity of Misplaced Pages, which currently has a rather poor reputation in the wider community. Whilst I know that a lot of high school students swear by it for research assignments, and a few tech gurus do as well, other than people who edit it and enjoy the community side to it, there are a lot of people who think that it is not really all that good. I think that the general perception is that it is good in the sense of being a "community", as in like LiveJournal kind of thing, but as an actual resource, it is not generally perceived all that well. Adding more accountability would improve this perception, and also make it a lot easier on everyone involved. I actually don't see the harm in making a user create an account before even editing at all. It's still free - you just need an account. And I further don't see why we couldn't require people to register by e-mail like LiveJournal does. Most places have that kind of thing, so why not here? I think that long-term, while these bad press issues come in, we are going to have to head towards that kind of thing anyway. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, except that I think the "bad press" is irrelevant. They think Misplaced Pages is inferior -- well, to what? There is no comparable project. Nothing like it was tried before (or rather, no similar project was remotely as successful). Academic standards should be our aim, and we are very far removed from that, on average, but if you want to compare it to sources published by a board of editors, consider it a collection of 821 articles. All the rest is just thrown in for what it is, take it or leave it. I am afraid that academic standards are no nearer even with anons blocked completely; WP's "anti-acedemic bias" is, sadly, an entirely different discussion. dab (ᛏ) 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

THERE was very good reason to do this If you disagree then I doubt you've have new page patrolled. I did for a month. From what I observed, the vast majority of anon contributions had to be speedied, afd'd, or copyvio'd; and, the ones that remained were poor stubs on microparts of larger subjects. However, maybe we should allow anons to create articles through existing red links? Lotsofissues 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree; the percentage of valuable new pages that come from anons is pretty small.

I'm still shocked that Jimbo actually did it, given the arguments I've read about anonymous users being valuable, but I'll be interested to see how the experiment pans out. I think that most "drive-by" anonymous edits which are valuable are going to be to existing pages, not new ones, and registration is not that big a hurdle to someone interested enough to create a new page. I think perhaps something about "you can register for an account" should be added to Nocreatetext, though.

I was just thinking the other day that it might be good to disallow anon-page-creation (or even disallow anon-editing at all) for limited amounts of time -- one day a week, or one day a month, or something -- just to allow RC and NewPage patrollers a "Day of Rest". They could help with Misplaced Pages:Backlog, or (gasp) actually work on their own interests, without fretting over the rising tide of dreck. I didn't think it was a likely proposal in the traditional Misplaced Pages climate, and I do fear the slippery slope effect of "but it's so much NICER around here on Rest Days"....but what do other folks think of the notion? — Catherine\ 22:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As a developer, maybe you know, if there is any way to allow anons to create articles only from red links? Subjects already approved by editors for start should be open to every person. Lotsofissues 22:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this wouldn't work out... it shouldn't take long for users to discover they can create any pages they want by adding red links to existing articles. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see vandals from wikipedia-watch quickly adapting. But the dumb kid who just wants to say his school is gay? Red links show there is either not enough interest or knowledge in the existing membership to start an article. We need to open those links to newcomers. Lotsofissues 08:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Lotsofissues is making a very good suggestion. Anons should be able to create any page that is linked to from an article. A system like this would still prevent anons from creating nonsense pages, while allowing them to create wanted articles and to perform such tasks as adding articles to AfD. Some vandals will realize how to get around it, but anyone who can figure out to get around it by adding a link to an existing article is smart enough to get around the current system by creating an account. Does anyone know if this idea is technically feasible? Canderson7 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

this move is a start, but only a start. that it took a major media fiasco to get action on this problem is rather sad - i think wikipedia needs to start being proactive, rather than reactive. i'm a newer wikipedian. i like wikipedia, and i dislike it. i've written some screedishness on my user page. the suggestion that anons are valuable is, in my opinion, rubbish. oh, i'm certain there are anons that have contributed valuable info. i'm also quite certain they could have contributed that info non-anonymously, just as well. this new move does not go far enough. to edit, one should have to sign up, and respond to an email 'opt in'. the user can still remain - fundamentally, and patently in effect - anonymous. but they must at least show that they're willing to 'stand behind' what they write, at least to the extent that someone can contact them and say 'stop being a putz'. and yes, nothing to stop the truly committed 'anon' from just using a throwaway address for the signup. but at minimum, it adds a crucial layer of committment a step away from simply clicking, and writing 'i have a giant penis' in the middle of an article. in the couple of months i've been here, the flow of "rv" "rv" "rv" "rv" "rv" that goes past in my watchlist is, really, laughable. so many good faith people have their time burned by the bad faith people out there. why be a doormat for people who have crap on their minds? (yes, i'm in a screedalicious mood)....at any rate, if you are interested, feel free to visit my user page for more ramblings. Anastrophe 00:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I like what Jimbo is at least trying this out. Maybe we could also have a brief period of disallowing any anon edits and then comparing whether vandalism decreased and other useful statistics. Gflores 01:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anon new pages are as much more likely to be problematic as people seem to assume. For example, of the 11 pages listed as copyvio so far today, 7 are from registered users (most added before the anon new page lock went into effect). If people aren't checking reg edits during NP/RC patrol, I think a lot is getting missed. 24.17.48.241 02:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A more recent example: User:Emperor, who has been registered for almost 3 years, just did a cut&paste move of the content of Futurequake to FutureQuake (if an admin reading this could merge the histories--they both have multiple edits now). All edits need to be checked, and the only way I see that happening is if more people start doing NP and RC patrol; the population of 'checkers' does not seem to have increased nearly proportional to the increase in the number of 'editors/adders'. 24.17.48.241 04:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The only issue I have with this as a frequent RC and NP patroller is that now it is a bit harder to tell the "good" from the "bad" on each of these lists. I think a sizeable chunk of our former anonymous vandals are now getting one-hit-wonder logins, doing their thing, and then probably disappearing into the night. Don't get me wrong; if this makes blocking or cleanup easier in some way I don't see, then I'm all for it. ESkog | 03:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is what we call at work that comes from upper management a "Knee jerk reaction". It's purpose is to show whomever that something is being done to fix a perceived problem, rather than actually fix the problem. I could start a new article on this subject but unfortunately I'm not allowed.--67.3.223.148 05:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest this be done only once in a while when appropriate. Not all the time. But when discipline is needed. Sort of like time to exercise or fire drills. The more restrictions, the less movement and contributions.--Jondel 06:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Having spent much of my time on Misplaced Pages adding delete tags to pointless new articles (and actually enjoying it, strangely) I see why this change might be necessary. 90% of the articles I've added said tags to have been created by anons, though I do of course click on the anon ones more as they're more suspicious. There are of course many good articles created by anons but hopefully the registration process shows itself to be quick and easy for them (which it is, I was pretty surprised how it only took a few seconds when I did it). It might make sense to highlight exactly what you need to register. Generally though, apart from being slightly scared this will lead to registration for all users after a similar case, which I think is certainly a bad idea I just about agree with it. Jellypuzzle 10:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And now 95% of the articles you tag will be by redlinked usernames. And when we realize that most of our worthless pages are created by redlinked usernames and disallow mainspace page creation by users without a userpage, 100% of the articles you tag will be by bluelinked usernames. Hooray for progress! —Cryptic (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

So it looks like crybaby Siegenthaler accomplished what many community activists could not achieve--controlling what anons could do in the Misplaced Pages. However, even though I feel favorable to restricting the creation of articles (and even "major degree" changes) by anons, it appears that Mr. Wales has trumped any community discussion of this. That is rather alarming. That he has allowed an old crybaby to force through a change in the nature of Misplaced Pages portends bad things ahead if this decision isn't entered into a proper community decision process as soon as possible. — Stevie is the man! 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wales' dictatorial approach has to stop somehow. It isn't helpful, and it prevents discussion of "trivial" changes that really aren't trivial at all. Off the top of my head, there have been six recent occasions of Jimbo doing whatever he wants without regard for the community, and he shows no sign of recognizing there may be problems with that:

• Speedy deletion of unsourced images
• Arbitration committee appointments
  • Deleting the straw poll created to promote discussion of the above
• Deleting libelous material from history
• Having John Seigenthaler Sr. protected, and then deleted entirely
• Forbidding anonymous page creation

Only one of these seems to be unobjectionable enough to not need much discussion (libel deletion), but there are still complaints that we should not be deleting history. The page-creation decision seems the worst by far. Why should we continue to go along with our uncommunicative dictator? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's Jimmy's encyclopaedia. He can do what he likes. First, he likes banning newpages from anons. Next, he might like banning anons altogether. Then, he might like banning anyone who doesn't agree with him or the... mustn't use the c word. Me, I hope he'll start liking a great NPOV encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but I'm not holding my breath.

Anonymity does not imply bad faith.

Not only was I anonymous editor for a fair while before becoming pseudonymous, but I have also done new page patrol. I disagree with Lotsofissues. I, for one, remember being anonymous myself. The very first new page that I created as an anonymous editor was nominated for deletion minutes after I created it. I argued the case to keep it, and the page was kept. Had this gross assumption of bad faith, simply on the grounds that someone chooses not to create an account, been in place when I first came here, I wouldn't be here now. Anonymity does not imply bad faith. Anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Misplaced Pages every day. Indeed, since the subject of preventing anonymous users from nominating articles for deletion has come up, I point out that there was an anonymous user who made an AFD nomination very recently that put the nominations of many pseudonymous users to shame. Uncle G 14:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• ... whereas George W. Bush was just nominated for deletion by a pseudonymous user, Allomagh (talk · contribs). Uncle G 14:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • but he only created his account this morning , after the restriction on anonymous newpage creation (required for AfD). Conclusion: if we force people to register to create new pages, and registering is that easy, a big effect is reducing our trust in registered users as a group; it requires more emphasis on checking each person's contribution history, and less of "oh, well he bothered to register, that's worth something". Rd232 15:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • We need to make it a bit of a bother to register: a 30 to 60 second non-automatable procedure that involves manually clicking various checkboxes and typing in text (not personal information of any kind, just Turing tests to make sure we're not dealing with a bot). Legitimate users (who will only have to do this once, ever) won't mind, especially if we explain to them upfront the reason why; on the other hand, mass-creators of abusive sockpuppets will have a small extra hassle to go through each time they burn a sockpuppet through vandalism. This is like spam: if spam cost 1 cent per message (or a CPU usage cost to do a small mathematical calculation) it would become uneconomical. -- Curps 09:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Please see our very fine article on CAPTCHA for the problems with this idea. --Carnildo 10:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Have we forgetten WP:BITE? - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Anonymity does not imply bad faith. I don't think Misplaced Pages should cave to outside pressure to change its policies - any policy changes should arise from discussions within the community, not imposed from the top down. I think it's crucial to keep independence and allow anonymity. I was an anonymous user and made several edits and started articles before eventually registering. One of Misplaced Pages's strengths (and weaknesses) is that it is easy to edit and easy to get started. Requiring vandals to register will do nothing to stop determined vandals, and will only discourage new users. The restriction on creating new articles sounds like more of a public relations move than an actual solution -- it does nothing to address the criticisms of Misplaced Pages that were raised. And as a public relations move it sends the wrong message -- that the people running Misplaced Pages can be intimidated into making changes in the procedures and infrastructure of Misplaced Pages by a little bit of bad press. Flow 01:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Less work for everyone cannot possibly be bad, right?

I predict the following observation: Misplaced Pages still works well without anons creating articles, and we will have less work.
It doesn't follow that this is a good idea, or that this is a bad idea. In fact, I sincerely doubt we'll reach any conclusion at all, since nobody has established what we are trying to accomplish. This could very well stick around through sheer inertia. Who is going to come up with concrete evidence of what the difference to Misplaced Pages is? How do you measure improvement? In number of lawsuit scares per second?
Incidentally, I see both glowing praise in the media for this as a reaction to the Seigenthaler incident, and damning criticism of the "closing the barn door after the horse has left" kind. Of course nobody looks at the big picture of what Misplaced Pages is and how it should be appraised, but that's to be expected. JRM · Talk 16:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• According to press reports, what Jimbo has stated the change is intended to achieve is a reduced New Page Patrol workload for our "600 active volunteers". Uncle G 19:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

... and "at least eight other languages". I've popped a note off to the BBC regarding their article which has both worrying statements, and misses the 'active' from the volunteer bit. User:Noisy | Talk 20:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Way of automatically placing anon new pages into a cat ?

Is there a way of making up a category of new pages created by anons besides the Speical:Newpages function? That way it could be like cleanup, with Category:Anonnewpages-Monday, Category:Anonnewpages-Tuesday, etc.. That way the newpage patrol wouldn't duplicate effort, and know when a page sliped passed them. Does any of the programers here know if you can automatically add a cat like Category:Anonnewpages to any new pages created by anons?--Rayc 16:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I think that could just work. I sadly think this decision isn't as "temporary" as we think though. Jellypuzzle 16:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So this is permanent?

I don't see the word "experimental" appear alongside this action. Lotsofissues 16:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't registering offer more privacy?

It seems to me that editing "anonymously" actually exposed more information about you to the general public, by exposing your IP address. For people editing from an Internet cafe, or from a large ISP that dynamically assigns addresses in a large range or puts people behind proxies, that doesn't matter so much. But for many people, as for our hoaxster, that number will identify either your home or your employer. If you register, access to this information becomes restricted to a much smaller set of people. If you edit from multiple locations, you could associate those edits as being from the same person by registering, but on the other hand, you could always register for multiple accounts, and no one would be the wiser. I'm wondering if privacy advocates shouldn't be encouraging people to register, then? -- Beland 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Side effects of requiring registration

I think some people are under the misimpression that just because anyone who wants to create a new article could register to do so, they will do so. Registration is a hoop to jump through, and a small annoyance. Just because someone intends to do something, does not mean they will continue to want to do so once it becomes clear that the process is more annoying or requires more effort than they thought when they started out. So while some people will register to get around the restriction, everyone in that situation will not, and that's pretty much the point. Having to also create a userpage, for instance, would be yet another hoop, which would result in another drop in participation. So while there may be a slippery slope here, it is an uphill one. -- Beland 19:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• IMHO, I think all anon activity should be curtailed, not just new article creation. This is not a free-speech issue. It's a responsibility issue. Requiring contributors to create an account with a linked email addy would significantly reduce vandalism. One can still contribute anonymously by signing up via a Hotmail account. My name isn't really Juan Oso. I contribute anonymously. However, if there were to be a problem, I am more easily traced. Free speech does not mean anyone can say anything anywhere at any time. One has no right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater. One has no right to spray-paint "Bush sucks" on the front of my house. To that extent, I would say one has no right to vandalize an online site like Misplaced Pages through anonymous shenanigans. JuanOso 21:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush edit history

Looking at the full history of the article, which I wouldn't recommend anyone else do (my browser was taking up 480MB of memory after the page loaded), I counted various vandalism reversion terms, and came out to just over 6,000. Assuming that each vandalism consisted of only one edit, that comes out to be (after some tedious calculation) over 12,000 edits related only to vandalism. This article has nearly 26,000 edits to date.

Additionally, over 10,600 edits were by anonymous users, leaving 15400 for registered users.

More fun facts: 249 edits were made in 2002, 555 in 2003, and 5533 in 2004. In 2005, we're up to 19,630. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2005-12-16 22:43

Here's my quick, half-baked thought after reading that: There really needs to be a way to audit edit histories to remove obvious vandalism. Vandalism, while being reverted quickly, can easily make edit histories unusable. (certainly there must be a reason why this hasn't happened yet) — Ambush Commander 23:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Abuse happens ("It's just an anonymous user and I don't like what he said, so I'll rollback"). Mistakes happen ("Whoops, wrong article"). And when there are subsequent vandal edits, it is quite often the case that one vandalism is rolled back, but another one is missed. I've seen this on the Wiki article where an entire section was lost for months because of a poorly done revert. I agree we need better ways to look at page histories. Hiding is not the solution, but perhaps color coding or dynamic client-side filtering (like the enhanced Special:Recentchanges) based on certain criteria could work. If you have any ideas, a mock-up of a better design would help, I think.

On the original comment: I believe this is exactly a case where semi-protection might be warranted; the article is so highly exposed and so political that there are just too many poor edits. If not semi-protection, the anonymous edits should be delayed before becoming visible at the very least, otherwise the risk of a casual reader encountering a vandalized version is too great.--Eloquence* 21:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

one possibility would be delayed cleaning of edit history. We could have bots that remove rolled-back edits from the edit history, if they were not in turned reverted back (so that edit wars will not be removed from he edit history), for edits, say, more than one week old. You'll have the full history for the past week, but both the vandal edit and the rollback will be gone from the edit history for times further back. This will result in much cleaner histories for prominent articles, and it will remove much offensive material that today can be linked to as a diff. dab (ᛏ) 09:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages Founder Edits Own Bio"

Wired: Misplaced Pages Founder Edits Own Bio

One of the edits seems to be .

This is not appropritate, as clearly stated at Misplaced Pages:Autobiography. People should not edit articles about themselves in this way, but should note problems on the talk page and let other people fix the problems. Jimbo should have known better :/. Thue | talk 08:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh. I knew about this before, and I still don't think it's a big deal- Jimbo understands WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO (after all, they were his ideas..), and it's perfectly fine for him to help the encyclopedia more directly like this.--Sean|Black 09:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I maintain that the restrictions of WP:AUTO are, at best, redundant and, at worst, harmful. The primary policies of NPOV, verifiability, and no original research already cover any ill that arises from self-edits and are just as easy to police if we insist on having verifiable sources. --Dystopos 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO his edits were clearly not in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, regardless of that fact that he was the person behind the policy. And I also do support the Misplaced Pages:Autobiography policy, which clearly states make suggestions on the article's talk page and let independent editors write it into the article itself. Thue | talk 17:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents is this: WP:AUTO is *WRONG*, and Jimbo Wales did nothing wrong. The reality is that somehow or other we ended up with an untenable rule, which most likely Jimbo didn't approve. I have come up with guidelines which I think should sort out this kind of problem, and, whilst it was more to deal with issues such as Seigenthaler et al, it applies equally as well for this. Please see User:Zordrac/experts for more info. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, it seems to me that Jimbo was not actually writing about himself. He was correcting what appeared to be a minor factual error in the discussion of Misplaced Pages history within the article on himself. Just my $0.02. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 02:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The question of "who founded Misplaced Pages?" is contentious. Jimbo is well-aware of that. Replacing "Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger founded Misplaced Pages..." with "Jimmy Wales is the sole founder of Misplaced Pages." is not an NPOV edit. — David Remahl 06:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Parallel situation: Roger Ebert has apparently helped maintain his own article, although he did not create it. See Talk:Roger_Ebert. (Ebert has written about Misplaced Pages in his columns, so it seems safe to assume that was really him making those edits.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As somebody who's never edited WP:VP before, nor read Jimmy's Bio, nor read the Bomis article, I am much surprised as I go through past incarnations of Bomis to find that some links are absent, even in mention. It's pretty clear to see how Bomis intended to make money (the old adage, "for a technology to become successful, it must be adopted by the porn industry," seems particularly relevant here) when reading the old edits. However in light of the Wired editorial, and the edit history on that page in particular, I'm pretty disturbed to see its current content. It would seem that people are ashamed of it, or that they are afraid that information (afterall, we are not here to determine what is "appropriate" to print, we are here to catalog) will show something other than the history shows? I don't understand. In fact, the pornographic history of Bomis has become something of lore on the wikipedia -- it is in our corpus.

I am not asking for "accountability" per se. However, as we see the "little green bar" in the medium six-figures range, I do humbly request that we can get past the vanity game. Doesn't Mr. Wales have anything better to do with his time than maintain an "image"? Surely he isn't running for office or anything like that. I don't really think the "little girl in Africa" cares much one way or the other how Bomis made money. Avriette 02:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Metadata proof-of-concept implemented for English Misplaced Pages

First read this article about the success of the German metadata project. Then check out Misplaced Pages:Persondata. If anyone is interested in this project, talk to me on the WikiProject Biography talk page or my personal talk page. Kaldari 15:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've brought this up on the mailing list, so hopefully we'll get some feedback there. There's been a good bit of disucssion recently over biographies, so it's an excellent time... Shimgray | talk | 17:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Self-nomination of good articles

Authors usually know best which of their articles qualify as Misplaced Pages:Good articles, yet self-nominations are frowned upon. Now you can propose articles you have worked on at Misplaced Pages:Good articles/Self-nominations so that somebody else can promote them to Good Article status. AxelBoldt 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

and over on Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Good_Articles you can discuss whether you think Misplaced Pages: Good articles is a good idea.--Samuel J. Howard 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Moon conspiracy and religion

Searching new page additions on Misplaced Pages: A few days ago I added a new page addition on Misplaced Pages, Moon conspiracy and religion, however when I try to search from the Misplaced Pages search box on say, moon, moon conspiracy, moon landing, moon hoax; the new page addition does not get listed.

Could you tell me please if there is some time lag in the process between a new page addition on Misplaced Pages and the Misplaced Pages search listings?

Thanks

--Wikiencyc 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone has put the new page addition into the fringe category and they say that it lacks references and they want to merge it with another item - Apollo moon landing hoax accusations where in October 2005 all of my contributions got booted out by the tyrants there. I have added a section on References and cited them and would not like the new page addition to be sidelined, excluded from search results or merged where tyrants can delete the content. --Wikiencyc 15:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

To answer your queries: The Misplaced Pages search function isn't very good, tbh - I only use it for near-exact article name matches. Try Google with those terms and the word Misplaced Pages. On the other issue, the ability of other users to edit and remove content is what the whole Misplaced Pages is all about, so we can't really help there. You might also want to look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Moon conspiracy and religion. The Land 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Boxing day present

Merry Christmas,
Have a look at this first Wikidata application for the GEMET data.. GerardM 19:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Irregular Webcomic

Yesterday's Irregular Webcomic! features a Misplaced Pages related punchline.-- Sean Black (talk · contribs) (ask me on my talk if you must)--68.64.65.89 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion History

• For some reason, Non-sysop users can no longer view deletion histories.

As far as I know that was turned off intentionally. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This change was announced in the mailing list . - Liberatore(T) 14:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Free Republic's plans for mass invasion

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts. User:Zoe| 17:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Even though I'm a liberal, it would be good to have some more conservative editors around. If we got support from both sides of the political spectrum, it would improve the POV problems and help make Misplaced Pages much more accepted. Though they probably are reacting to the tilt that comes with any international project. To them, the rest of the world is biased to the left (or the US is biased to the right). Since about half of the 'pedia is writen outside of the US, it tends to reflect that.--Rayc

And even though I'm an arch-conservative, freepers scare the hell out of me. :P --Golbez 19:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• The system of "balanced" reporting to counter journalistic bias is not appropriate to Misplaced Pages. First of all, that practice promotes diametric thinking and obscures any idea which doesn't intersect a linear left/right spectrum. Second, Misplaced Pages requires a single neutral point of view, NOT a balance of opposing points of view. Editorial collaboration should push neutrality by eliminating, rather than balancing, biases. --Dystopos 23:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages chief considers taking ads

Story in the Times has Jimmy Wales saying he is thinking about adding ads, are we just finding out about this again? - cohesion★talk 19:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Say it ain't so, Jimbo! for Jimbo's response. --GraemeL 19:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As a participant in the Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject no ads, I'm not surprised at all. When 100's of Wikipedians made such a storm about the Answers.com deal, we asked for more information about the details of the deal signed, the possible amount of revenue the deal would establish, and the personal and economic relationships between Answers.com and the Wikimedia board members. We have received practically no official response to these questions, and I'm still not sure what will happen on January 1, the official "start" date of the new Answers.com "Misplaced Pages edition." It's possible that the recent controversies and newly apparent liability issues have deterred the board from adding this new "prominently" placed link, but we will have to see. One would think that the success of the fundraising drive would cut against this option, but Mr. Wales may have other plans for Misplaced Pages's future. The structure of the organization still gives him the final say. Tfine80 19:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The best way, IMO, for Misplaced Pages to make money is to sell products. Misplaced Pages-branded stuff, books, CDs for schools, etc. Donations are also great, too. Ads are right out - Britannica and World Book don't put up with that. --Golbez 19:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/search/search.aspx?q=Misplaced Pages User:Zoe| 21:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, looks like the media is taking things out of context as usual, haha - cohesion★talk 19:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages micronation - Tirben

Hi everyone, a group of us have decided to form a Misplaced Pages-community micronation. The name of it is Tirben, our IRC channel is #tirben on Freenode, and our website is at tirben.starglade.org. All wikipedians are invited to join and help us in creating our constitution! Talrias (t | e | c) 23:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a real micronation until its vanity article has been through VFD at least twice.--Samuel J. Howard 09:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

New batch of peer-reviewed articles citing Misplaced Pages

In the last couple of days I have searched around a bit and found about 70 new peer-reviewed academic articles that cite Misplaced Pages as a reference. As always, they're listed on Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_as_an_academic_source. One article, "Postmodern public administration: in the shadow of Postmodernism" by Cheryl King cites Misplaced Pages for the definition of "postmodern". Postmodern, indeed. AxelBoldt 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

NekoDaemon & soft redirect {{categoryredirect}}

To prevent over abuse of {{categoryredirect}}, any category page using this template must have the last person who edited the page to be an administrator. It is presumed that the last person who edited is an administrator and added the template (which may not be the entire case, but under the given circumstances, at least it was an administrator who did review the category before making his or her edit making him or her the last person to edit that page). It is preferable that administrators protect category pages using this soft redirect, but not required. The reasons behind this is to insure that some kind of CFD discussion has at least taken place when the soft redirect is used, due the fact that involves the mass changing of articles in a category. The other reason is that the community already has entrusted administrators to make wise decisions, so I feel that any administrator using this soft redirect can respond for his or her actions when using this soft redirect. The bot has also reflected its comments by listing the last user who edited the page, which must be an administrator. --AllyUnion (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you proposing this, or saying it is the case? Your verb tenses suggest this has already happened, but the rest of your words make it sound like a proposal. I don't see how this is to be enforced: what is to stop anyone from simply placing {{categoryredirect}} on a page? Very confusing. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think AllyUnion is talking about the behavior of the bot mentioned at the top of Template_talk:Categoryredirect. Apparently, that bot will automatically move articles from a category containing the {{categoryredirect}} template to the new category only if the last edit of the original one was by an administrator. AxelBoldt 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if sounded confusing. The bot has been doing this for some time now. The latter portion of what I was suggesting was that administrators should protect any page using {{categoryredirect}} once they use it. The reason is as AxelBoldt has stated. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Harvard Cyberlaw Course starting; needs help

Harvard Law School is starting a Cyberlaw course this week (prof: Jonathan Zittrain). They're using Misplaced Pages as a case study for part of it... I'm encouraging them to create accounts and edit, as part of getting to know what kinds of social and policy issues editors face.

You can track their progress, and account creation, at the Cyberlaw Wikiproject. Please keep an eye on their group user pages, and help them get their feet wet without running afoul of too many local customs. (Though half the fun for them may be seeing how policy like VfD and cleanup-notification is implemented...) You can leave any q's about the project on my talk page. Cheers, +sj + 18:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

They should do an article about efforts to control the content of Alan Dershowitz. That would be interesting. - Nunh-huh 01:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages article in January 9 edition of Newsweek

Online here: Yet it says that Misplaced Pages has 2.6 BILLION articles! Tfine80 19:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you know? Because of the Asian bandwidth deal we got from Google, everyone in China gets a vanity page, built from the identity card database. The Land 20:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If Newsweek's site were a wiki, we could fix that and other errors in the article, such as the reference to the "Misplaced Pages Foundation" (it's actually Wikimedia). *Dan T.* 01:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if Newsweek's site were a wiki, it would also say "poop head" in every third paragraph ... - DavidWBrooks 21:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Jimbo Wales' Personal Appeal, the Nature article, Misplaced Pages philosophy and funding, etc.

Longish article here. I believe it's fairly recent. 64.178.5.45 19:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about this site? --DanielCD 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I know quite a lot about it, having been its reader for about 5 years now. But from what I've observed of Misplaced Pages, actually knowing something about it probably disqualifies me from answering your question. In any case, the Aetherometry site has existed since summer 2001, and its purpose is to publish research on massfree energy (this is "dissenting science", and NOT a mainstream scientific discipline). As for the article, I am not sure what Nectarflowed means by it not being "notable" - is "notable" shorthand for "appearing in a major media venue such as the New York Times"? No, this is not the New York Times; it is far better - it is a team of people who are not beholden to anybody for how and what they think. As for the abstract being intended as a joke, I would consider this a plus. I quite enjoy jokes, especially when they are mixed with some serious and incisive critique - which I think is the case with this article. But perhaps if one cannot chew gum and walk at the same time, one also cannot stand having jokes and seriousness mixed together. FrankZappo 04:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be notable or worth reading (don't waste your time). The abstract even appears to be intended as a joke.--Nectar 01:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Disgruntled people who tried to edit the Aetherometry article to make it seem like their pet project is mainstream science. You may want to check the archives on the article's Talk page. User:Zoe| 21:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh come come come come. Is this an example of the famous Misplaced Pages "accuracy"? In the entire set of archives there has never been a single claim that Aetherometry is mainstream science. Why make things up? FrankZappo 03:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

New critique of Misplaced Pages

Somebody previously posted here a link to a new critique of Misplaced Pages, and user Carnildo promptly removed it as a "link spam". What in the world is a "link spam"? A link to an article critical of Misplaced Pages? I personally found the article hugely entertaining and its criticism often right on target. But your mileage may vary, of course. In any case, I don't see why posting a link to it here would constitute a "spam". There are many other links being posted here, and not being removed. Shame on you, Carnildo. FrankZappo 01:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a longer rant than usual for the anti-Misplaced Pages whines that are sprouting up like mushrooms these days, but it still follows the normal formula for such things. It originated as sour grapes because the writer couldn't get his own crackpottery accepted unquestionably here, and proceeds to attempt to apply political labels to Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians, and, predictably enough, makes the ad-hominem cheap shot about Jimbo being a "pornographer". Reading the anti-Misplaced Pages rants all over the 'net is amusing, because of the way they contradict one another. Depending on whose rant you read, we're too left-wing, too right-wing, too pro-mainstream, too anti-mainstream, too anarchistic, too fascistic, too uncontrolled, too controlled. We're controlled by the Jews, and we're a platform for Nazi hate speech. We have a pro-American bias; we're an anti-American conspiracy. We're a tool of the Religious Right and the godless Secular Humanists. We're just a bunch of nerds, but we're pedophiles too. *Dan T.* 01:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone really said we're too right-wing? - Nunh-huh 01:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has accomplished its goal of being fully accepted; there are now as many conspiracy theories targeting us as target the media. - DavidWBrooks 01:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC) ... (but Dan. T. is right: that is a particularly uninteresting critique. The wikipedia rants on The Register are much more fun to read.)

So did someone really say we're too right-wing, or is that just made up? - Nunh-huh 04:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's an article that claims that there are "right wing powers embedded in wikipedia". *Dan T.* 04:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Stirling Newbury, who used Misplaced Pages to attempt to mobilize people to impeach Bush, with the resulting article kept and not deleted!! Thanks for the reference. - Nunh-huh 04:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (Though reading the page you cited over now, he does seem hopelessly confused, and maybe the tiniest bit paranoid....) - Nunh-huh 06:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We've been accused of being right wing on DU.Geni 01:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is no doubt a very stupid question, but... what's DU? - Nunh-huh 03:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

democratic underground to be fair I suspect most things have been accused of being right wing there.Geni 09:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the Freepers Just say they wanted to counter are left-wing influnce? Being neutral either is having all sides saying that your not biased, or all sides saying that you are biased away from them--Rayc 05:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the old reviews of wikipedia on Alexa says wikipedia is controlled by right-wing interest groups. 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if he actually said there was a right-wing bias per se, but the left-wing blogger Bartcop is not a fan of Misplaced Pages. Tuf-Kat 07:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages community forums
• Misplaced Pages news
• To Village Pump (policy)