User:DragonHawk/BJAODN

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

My thoughts on the WP:BJAODN controversy. Some of this (especially the early stuff) I have copied/adapted from my own comments elsewhere on Wikipedia. This is all my opinion, of course; others can and surely will disagree.

₰₵

General

I liked BJAODN. I was sad to see it go.

However, I also think something needed to be done. BJAODN had reached a sort of critical mass. It had become an indiscriminate collection of vandalism. It was a lot like a cancer or an infection: Growing, but unhealthy.

Humor is very subjective. Any attempt at coming up with inclusion criteria for BJAODN as it was was doomed to failure. At best, the discussion would be nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT. More likely, most would quickly degenerate into WikiHate. Besides, can you imagine a "Featured vandalism" nomination process? The idea is ludicrous.

Present activity

Lots of people are rehashing the MFD arguments at Wikipedia talk:Silly Things I see no benefit to that. It's a waste of time. All of it has already been said. We can go re-read the closed MfD discussion if we want to see it again. Other people are just complaining. I'm not sure if that's worse or not. I would advise constructive suggestions, rather than "I don't like this outcome".

Future action

Under the spirit of the closing decision, I suspect the "Best of" pages probably also warrant deletion, as they are still a "monument to vandalism", and are fairly random in their selection. There is no scheme to any of it; it's an indiscriminate collection of vandalism.

"Stuff", the two hoaxes, and the Colbert incident are all, I suspect, sufficiently creative, unique, and focused not to be fuel for additional vandalism. The Colbert incident also has historical value; it's become a real (albeit minor and self-deprecating) part of Wikipedia culture.

Patience is definitely in order here. In particular, I plan on waiting at least a week or two before proposing any new course of action. BJAODN MfD #6 attracted a fair bit of passion. Giving tempers a chance to cool and people a chance to reflect would be a good thing.

MfD 6 close

Regarding the BJAODN MfD #6 close.

I do think the discussion, as a whole, can best be summarized as "no consensus". However, there were consensus elements to be found inside the murk.

Phil Sandifer, the closing admin, should be commended for taking on the onerous and unpleasant task of closing the discussion. As he noted, it was contentious.

The close did deviate from typical process somewhat, but that is perfectly fine. In this case, it was for the better.

He did very well to cut through the GFDL/copyright debate (which was very confused).

He correctly identified the real problem: BJAODN had become a "monument to vandalism", and that was Not Good for Wikipedia.

His overall decision (delete most of it; rename to highlight) was the best overall decision for Wikipedia as a whole. A good compromise leaves everyone equally unhappy; that was it.

The closing admin explicitly left open the possibility that any or all of the remaining pages may nominated for deletion separately.

References

General WP humor

BJAODN discussion

BJAODN subpages

Other

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - History