Jump to content

User talk:Lightbreather: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 43: Line 43:


Just not on Wikipedia. See [http://www.fark.com/comments/8378910 this] statement on FARK. It's amazing that Wikipedia can't get itself together to do the right thing like other sites have. I wonder why. Actually, I don't wonder at all. Wikipedia has always been driven by a conservative, right-leaning libertarian ideology that gives lip service to civil liberties. Anyone who tries to tell you that Wikipedia is "liberal" or leans left, hasn't been paying attention. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 08:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Just not on Wikipedia. See [http://www.fark.com/comments/8378910 this] statement on FARK. It's amazing that Wikipedia can't get itself together to do the right thing like other sites have. I wonder why. Actually, I don't wonder at all. Wikipedia has always been driven by a conservative, right-leaning libertarian ideology that gives lip service to civil liberties. Anyone who tries to tell you that Wikipedia is "liberal" or leans left, hasn't been paying attention. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 08:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

:Viriditas, wittingly or otherwise, you have just described Jimbo Wales to a "T". That right-leaning libertarian ideology is exactly what he subscribes to, at least if our bio on him is accurate. It is also what Carolmooredc subscribes to, as per her own website in its various versions over the years. And you wonder why these people choose to ban others from their talk pages? - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 00:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


== ANI by CarolMooreDC ==
== ANI by CarolMooreDC ==

Revision as of 00:25, 8 September 2014

On Civility

I came upon your comments here, and while I haven't nearly read all of it, I have to say: I agree with you 110%. There are so few women on here because there are constant battles over insignificantly petty issues that involve either outright insults and nasty language or sarcasm-dripping posts full of in-jokes or other mockery from someone who believes him/herself to be intellectually superior. Civility isn't clear cut, that's true, but the WMF could easily do something. There could be various "user conduct levels," for example, ranging from green (no violations in the past x days) to red (you get the idea). Let the green/yellow-green users patrol the red/orange-red ones, and let the latter group get flagged more or something. I suppose some would argue that this would bring about a sort of hegemony or tyranny, but given the transparent nature of the site, I doubt this would be much of a problem, and if it is, there will always be ways to ameliorate it.

Anyway I just thought I'd leave my thoughts here, along with some encouragement, because we need to be fighting more proactively for these kinds of changes if we want to reverse Wikipedia's stagnation in growth.

Have a great vacation! - SweetNightmares 03:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and double thanks! Lightbreather (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July drive and August blitz

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone!

Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here!

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been taken seriously

Just not on Wikipedia. See this statement on FARK. It's amazing that Wikipedia can't get itself together to do the right thing like other sites have. I wonder why. Actually, I don't wonder at all. Wikipedia has always been driven by a conservative, right-leaning libertarian ideology that gives lip service to civil liberties. Anyone who tries to tell you that Wikipedia is "liberal" or leans left, hasn't been paying attention. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, wittingly or otherwise, you have just described Jimbo Wales to a "T". That right-leaning libertarian ideology is exactly what he subscribes to, at least if our bio on him is accurate. It is also what Carolmooredc subscribes to, as per her own website in its various versions over the years. And you wonder why these people choose to ban others from their talk pages? - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI by CarolMooreDC

Thanks for your comment. It does deserve a response, but I'd like to avoid commenting on the noticeboard thread which I think should be closed. (IOW, I don't want to add to the drama.) Yes, there are disputes that need DR and editing behaviors that need admin review or RFC/U. But putting all three editors into one thread was the wrong approach. CMDC has brought up SPECIFICO on other noticeboards and this is simply another page in the on-going friction between them. (I've urged an WP:IBAN for them.) Of the two other editors, Two kinds is fairly new with 2,000 edits and one block and Corbet has a good record of editing articles; his block log shows that blocks were usually reverted fairly quickly. (Still, Corbet needs to bite his tongue more often.) But then Carol's own behavior gets thrown into the pot (thankfully that thread got closed quickly). I wish the admins had taken my hint about NOTHERE and closed the mess. Will something constructive come of the thread? I doubt it. The Gender gap project has been around for 10 years now, and this bit of drama on the task force talk page is simply a diversion from what the Project ought to be achieving. (Hopefully a temporary diversion.) IMO a better course of action would be for some of the more senior editors and admins to monitor the project more closely. (For example, SlimVirgin did so to some extent with SPECIFICO.) In accordance with WP:TPO purely personal remarks on the talk pages should be hatted, {{rpa}}'d, or moved to the talk page of the editor who started them. Cheers. – S. Rich (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]