Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Objectivism
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Objectivism page.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism:|
- 1 WP 1.0 bot announcement
- 2 Request for comment on Biographies of living people
- 3 “Classical liberalism”
- 4 RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people.
- 5 Traffic analysis
- 6 Objectivism articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
- 7 Request for input in discussion forum
- 8 Ayn Rand
- 9 Want Objectivism included in philosophy topics?
- 10 RfC at Murray Rothbard article
- 11 GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article
- 12 Pre-FAC peer review for Night of January 16th
- 13 Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
- 14 WikiProject X is live!
WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
- supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
- opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.
Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
- List of cleanup articles for your project
- Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
- Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip 05:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Generic RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. Comments invited as might apply to some articles of interest to this wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been using the Wikipedia page view counter at stats.grok.se to develop an analysis of the viewing traffic for pages related to this project. I haven't completely finished, but I wanted to post some initial findings to possibly stir discussion. Here are the project's top 10 most viewed articles:
- Ayn Rand – 152,482 – 25.6%
- Atlas Shrugged – 102,613 – 17.3%
- Objectivism (Ayn Rand) – 63,867 – 10.7%
- The Fountainhead – 54,307 – 9.1%
- Alan Greenspan – 43,567 – 7.3%
- John Galt – 32,691 – 5.5%
- Question (comics) – 25,236 – 4.2%
- Anthem (novella) – 12,925 – 2.2%
- Murray Rothbard – 11,027 – 1.9%
- List of Atlas Shrugged characters – 6,959 – 1.2%
- Average views per month for May 2009 to April 2010.
- Percentage of total project traffic coming from this article. Because I haven't gathered all of the traffic data, these could shift slightly, but the articles with incomplete data are low-traffic and shouldn't change the percentages much.
The math-savvy may have already noticed a key finding: 85% of the traffic comes from the top 10 articles, and 70% comes from just the top 5. So in terms of improving readers' experience, we can gain a great deal from focusing on a small number of articles. --RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Updated and completed analysis is now available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Traffic analysis. See also further discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk#Traffic analysis. --RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Objectivism articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Objectivism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Request for input in discussion forum
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)
Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011
harej 02:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Uh, OK? Also it's not wikipedia's role to say whether Rand is "eminent". TallNapoleon (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Want Objectivism included in philosophy topics?
to be polite here... stop screwing around and try to do what is best for wikipedia. if it really belonged there, the consensus would support it, if you want to add it by force of will, all you are doing is making the encyclopedia less worthwhile and encouraging more philosophers to tell their students to ignore it. if you want your idol's work to be taken seriously, take other topics seriously and realize the difference in audience, differences in kind that exist. philosophy is fundamentally about giving credit where credit is due, if you break that norm, you will only undermine your position more. --Buridan (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Buridan, first of all, this is not the appropriate place for this. My talk page is.
- If you're serious about what you think of this, you'll take the issue to the administrators. If you just want to attempt to intimidate me, then you're not doing what's best for wikipedia. Try telling the administrators I'm acting inappropriately by bringing this issue to the attention of a relevant wikiproject if you think you can persuade them to your point of view. Otherwise, what's the point of this post?
- Furthermore, on what basis do you accuse me of regarding Rand as "my idol". Because I think her philosophy is notable enough to merit inclusion? That's not a lot to go off of, but even if you're right, it's not relevant to accuse me of regarding her as such. It's a pointless cheap shot.
- Also, you haven't accused me of doing anything wrong, aside from "screwing around". What does that mean? Having an opinion contrary to yours, and taking our debate to a relevant wikiproject? There's no harm in me bringing this issue to the attention of this wikiproject's members. "all you are doing is making the encyclopedia less worthwhile and encouraging more philosophers to tell their students to ignore it" How so? You don't say. And suppose more philosophers tell their students to ignore wikipedia. So what? We're supposed to not do what we think is good for the site, and instead cater to popular demand? What if our views are in opposition to theirs? "if you want to add it by force of will" You mean if I want to add it by making my case and bringing it to the attention of people who I think would be interested in presenting their views in addition to ours? "philosophy is fundamentally about giving credit where credit is due, if you break that norm..." How have I done so? These are all just a bunch of assertions without argumentation.
- Finally, you haven't considered the possibility that all of this wikiproject's members who become aware of this issue and check it out will then take your side of the issue, thereby being detrimental to my desire for inclusion. So why did I put this here? Because I want more people involved in the discussion. And this is bad how? byelf2007 (talk) 19 February 2012
- i only expect those wikiproject administrators to think. I mean really think, think much more deeply about their strategy than you are doing. If they want Rand to be a philosopher on any level and to be recognized as such, they are playing the wrong game by alienating philosophers. I also think that most of the people here will see you basically for what you are, a wikipedia protagonist and dilettante who think that by pushing Rand and Objectivism onto every single page you can, you'll gain popularity or some nonsense. That could work among the ignorant, but I think that the people who have been working on this topic long enough will tell you, that your strategy... is undermining everyone. It would be one thing if your position were true, objectively, but your position is akin to propaganda. I'll let them judge. I'm not here to intimidate you, I'm here to show you that you are being strategically naive and very silly. you are screwing around, by that I mean, you are being an amateur of the worst sort. You lack forethought, and you seek to attempt to win with majority from appeal to an outside project. That is always the best way to win, no? perhaps instead, you should try using judgement and reason. try being an objectivist for instance. --Buridan (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- First, you didn't explain this initially. You just made some assertions. So, yes, I do surmise that you were probably attempting to intimidate me, because if this really was your intention, why didn't you just say it right away? Instead you just made a bunch of vague statements.
- Second, Rand is already recognized as a philosopher by plenty of people (albeit an unpopular one among those who have an opinion on her views). I'm not sure why you'd think my thought process is something along the lines of "Hm...if only Rand's philosophy were listed on the wikipedia philosophy topics template, then she's sure to get the adoration she deserves." And I'm not trying to get Rand "onto every single page you can". If that were the case, you'd see me doing it. At present, I just want Objectivism on the philosophy topics template (because of its popularity) and her definition of "concept" on the "concept" page (again, because of her popularity).
- Also, I want consistency on this site. I often see Rand's views not included on a page about an issue which includes the views of relatively obscure thinkers, so I include her views. I do this with (popular) ideas I disagree with as well. I'm not an Objectivist, I disagree with Rand on her metaphysics, her ethics, I find many of Rand's political views to be absolutely repulsive, and many of her justifications for her opinions are incredibly bad (including many opinions I agree with her on). Does this all preclude my desire to have wikipedia pages accurately reflect what I think are appropriate standards for notability and consistency? Of course not.
- You may disagree with the edits I want and you may think I'm just trying to plug Rand everywhere, but why does this mean you ought to take issue with me informing people on this wikiproject about this issue in order to have them be aware of it and get them involved in the discussion? If I think you're plugging X everywhere and trying to get inclusions that don't make any sense, am I supposed to feel compelled to unprofessionally belittle you by saying you're "screwing around" when you inform people in a relevant wikiproject about the editing issue you're involved in, on the wikiproject page no less? byelf2007 (talk) 19 February 2012
- because i did want to say you were f*cking around. you are doing little than testing waters and playing games. you post one place 2 months ago, get rejected, wait, then try again yesterday and when that was rejected based on prior consent and consistent standards, you come here in order to rally support to overcome the consent and likely try to rebut the standard. that is playing games, it is 'screwing around' by definition. you are doing it all over wikipedia, basically completely undermining your own credibility, if you have any, and the pages credibility on which you post playing your game. I appreciate your right to play games on wikipedia, but all i ask is that you use some judgment and don't explicitly construct fundamentally misleading articles. --Buridan (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- "overcome the consent..." This implies that once a consensus has been established, it can never be overturned by more opinions from additional users. "you come here in order to rally support..." This implies either that I somehow have foreknowledge that anyone who chooses to become involved will take my position or that it's inappropriate to post "here's a recent issue, whaddaya think?" on wikiprojects, which is a common occurrence on wikiprojects. Telling me I'm "screwing around" by making people aware of an issue on a relevant wikiproject when it's a common occurrence is odd, especially when it's more appropriate to do so on my talk page. byelf2007 (talk) 19 February 2012
- Buridan, Byelf2007's notification here seems entirely appropriate, since participants and lurkers at this page would presumably be able to offer informed feedback on the issue being discussed. If you think everyone who watches this project is going to support Byelf2007's effort regardless of whether it fits with Wikipedia norms, then you have significantly misunderstood the purpose of this project and who participates here. --RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
RfC at Murray Rothbard article
GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article
Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
Pre-FAC peer review for Night of January 16th
Night of January 16th was promoted to good article status a few months ago, and I would like to take it to featured article status. It would be the first FA for WikiProject Objectivism. In preparation, I've opened a peer review request for feedback. Last time I requested peer review, I got zero replies, so I'm hoping a little advertisement this time will draw some feedback. Please review the article and then go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Night of January 16th/archive2 to give your thoughts. Thanks in advance. --RL0919 (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.