Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brian0918 (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 18 January 2006 (→Proposed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pcb's comments

(In reply to Kosembase's law): That's not actually what Kosebamse said on your talk page. He said that people go crazy (violate social standards) under the stress of having to repeatedly defend themselves. People with non-mainstream thoughts are more likely to have defend themselves more often. This is independent of whether they are correct or not. Pcb21| Pete 10:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• I actually asked Raul to help me with the phrasing and the above phrasing (including corollary) is my amended version of his proposal. And by the way, "people of strong opinion" is Raul's way of putting it, I was actually thinking of "fanatics, monomaniacs and nutters" rather than this, but am grateful for the version that he supplied. I don't doubt that people with non-mainstream thoughts are more likely to have to defend themselves more often, but that gives them no right or excuse to behave uncivilly . Indeed, the more exotic your views, the greater is the degree of compliance with accepted standards of behavior that you need to find an audience willing to discuss them. Kosebamse 19:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you can add somewhere the "axiom of the Babel Tower".+MATIA ☎ 09:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with that... explain, please? →Raul654 13:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay. It's about NPOV and expanding an article. I think the title is good, but my ideas are still in a raw form. In the next days I'll try to give some examples and I hope you (or we) can summarise them. +MATIA ☎ 23:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggested law...

As the length of an argument on wikipedia-l or foundation-l approaches infinity, the probability of it turning into a language debate approaches 1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, oh, I have one too! In a dispute, the higher the probability that a user is in the wrong, the higher the probability that that user will take an immediatist stance in said dispute. (Because users that are in the wrong, whether from a policy or civility standpoint tend to fear people will figure this out and thus desire to have their suggestions effected immediately. Prime example: Everyking in the Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) dispute last year. Not that I have anything against him personally; I think he's mellowed a bit since the arbcom laid down the law.) Johnleemk | Talk 10:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A point

You mentioned that there is a high incidence of Misplaced Pages editors who are gay, transgendered, or furry. Have you also noticed the disproportionately high number of people with autism or symptoms of Asberger's syndrome? What could be the reason for this? --156.56.146.94 01:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Autism/asperger's syndrome is well known to be associated with geeks, of which Misplaced Pages has a disproportionately large number (owing to the nature of the medium). Raul654 05:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Redwolf24's law and Semi-protection

This is why semi-protection is not as useful as some people seem to think. And sadly, it is spreading like wildfire. Pcb21 Pete 15:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Reminds me of Pepperell, Massachusetts, where some guy from the Leighs lived there, and thought it was Wicked Awesome. On the other hand, new users/vandals won't known enough to vandalize random, less viewed articles, and it isn't as rewarding to them, as they won't be seen as frequently, which is where the flaw in the anti-semi logic is. -Mysekurity 05:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet another law for your law page

Greetings.

I have a law for your law page.

Extreme Unction's First Law: If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy.

Corollary: In any sufficiently large social endeavor, there will always be some subset of people who fail to understand this law, and who will see conspiracies and cabals around every corner whenever their views fall into the minority.

Corollary to the corollary: As the number of people who independently conclude that you're a disruptive jerk increases, the likelihood that you're really a positive, constructive contributor who's merely run afoul of the "ruling elite" decreases. Not that there was ever a big chance of that to begin with.

Corollary to the corollary to the corollary: The people who most need to understand this law and its corollaries never will.

Hope you find them amusing and edifying.
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 08:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Support! JFW | T@lk 13:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Extreme cabal support! Carbonite | Talk 13:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Another one occurred to me earlier this morning:

Extreme Unction's Second Law: No matter how patently ludicrous a given proposition may be, any sufficiently large online community will always have at least one person willing to defend that proposition.
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Fantastic! Agree, as well as my blogmates! JFW | T@lk 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, these are good. I have another two that I've been thinking of (the second one's a bit dubious, but I've observed it):

Grammy's law: If a user posts on User talk:Jimbo Wales about a dispute, that is a strong indication that the user in question is a) inexperienced or b) wrong.

Grammy's corollary: If a user starts coloring his posts in discussions, that is an indication that the user is going to post on User talk:Jimbo Wales soon.

Regards, grm_wnr Esc 15:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

One more rule

Carbonite's law: "The more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith". Carbonite | Talk 15:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this product and/or service. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite, why don't you try assuming good faith?? :) — ₀₉₁₈ • 2005-12-28 16:32

Because I'm in the cabal. Big fines for breaking the union rules. ;) Carbonite | Talk 16:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be a petulant whiner, but...

I humbly request that I be allowed a small refactoring of my first law on your "Laws" page. My anal-retentive nature cries out at the large block of corollaries all mixed in with the basic law.

This is sheer personal aesthetics, of course, so I will understand fully if you would prefer your own aesthetic preferences to prevail within the realm of your own user space.

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 18:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw your edit making this switch - I am OK with it. Raul654 23:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My anal-retentive nature thanks you profusely. =) Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 00:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright law

You have a law which states, "For every one person who knows something about copyright law, there are at least ten who don't, and two who think they do but don't.". In my experience, it's more like "and twenty who think they do but don't". I can't count the number of times I've read some ignoramus spout of nonsense about words or phrases being "copyrighted", or defend blatant violations of the fair use doctrine, or completely misunderstand the most basic tenets of the GFDL. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever come across anyone who has plainly and willingly confessed his ignorance of copyright law. —Psychonaut 17:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My compliments...

...to Rob Church. Would that his law were chiselled into the doorsteps of WP:RFAr. Kosebamse 05:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

One more...

Extreme Unction's Third Law: For every reason cited as "this is why valuable long-term editors/admins are leaving Misplaced Pages", there is an equal and opposite reason which has already been cited by someone else.

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A Wikilawyering law - cheers

User:Benjamin Gatti's Law: The more a given user accuses others of avoiding the rules by Wikilawyering, the higher the probability that said user is ignoring all rules. Benjamin Gatti 02:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Raul654/Raul's laws

So wait... do I count as one or three of these (re: #8)? ^_– ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 18:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner's Law

What about the law snowspinner mentioned at the meetup - paraphrasing: "Sam Spade is the worst good user, if your behavior is worse than his, the arbcom should ban you." or something like that - needs to be a little more pithy. Trödel•talk 20:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting but potentially WP:NPA so perhaps less suitable for an otherwise pretty neutral page. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why am I the worst good user? What does that mean? Is it a backhanded compliment, or what? Is Snowspinner the worst good admin? is Jimbo the worst good website owner? Is this the worst part of the best of all possible worlds!?! Sam Spade 11:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed

As the number of articles on Misplaced Pages grows exponentially, the number of featured articles grows geometrically.

Possible corrolary: Although Misplaced Pages's overall quality will surely be better tomorrow than it is today, Misplaced Pages's average quality will only decline.

Possible corrolary: As the number of editors grows exponentially, the number of core contributers grows geometrically.

A bit pessimistic, but seems accurate. – Quadell 20:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• We're all about pessimism around here! :) — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-01-18 20:18